Jones Act/Passenger Act Debarkation Question

[robsaw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabotage

 

Now, the interesting thing is that even in the example given in this Wikipedia article, that deals with the hub and spoke nature of aviation, there is a workaround. The example is that a passenger wanting to travel from Boston to Seattle can book a ticket to Toronto, and a second ticket from Toronto to the west coast, but cannot travel on a single Air Canada ticket, as that would be allowing a foreign flagged airline to operate domestic US service. So it might appear that there SHOULD be a workaround for cruise ships. Maybe. Sort of.

 

Yes, people do this all the time for airline travel (Canada-US-Canada on a US carrier or US-Canada-US on a Canadian carrier). It does violate the intent of the "cabotage" prohibitions but IF it is booked as 2 separate tickets, no one is the wiser. A stopover in the intermediate city can make it legal, but what people usually are after is a lower fare not a short visit in the connecting city. Of course, there are also the hassles of clearing US AND Canadian customs/immigration on these sorts of routings that is actually being used for a domestic routing.

[Cruise Junky]

But airlines don't work that way. You won't find an Air Canada flight going from Boston to New York. They may have a code share with United, etc. but they only fly in and out of Canada.

[The Big Booper]

Thanks for the link. Does a great job of explaining what it is but not necessarily the "why." Being a free-enterprise kind of guy, I happen to believe that as long as a carrier isn't being given an unfair advantage by being supported by a government, they should be able to sail, fly, drive wherever. Our US airlines for instance, could use the competition. I would rather fly a foreign carrier (CX, BA, etc.) than a domestic one, any day of the week.

 

And in the cruise ship industry, it's ludicrous since there are NO U.S. flagged ships to compete against unless Norwegian still has that one roaming around Hawaii.

 

Simple. NCLA started with 3 ships in Hawaii. But to qualify, most of the crew has to be American in addition to the requirements of being sorts-built here in the States. And there was the rub, the American kids were not willing to work the long hours for not that great a salary.

 

We were staying in Hawaii 9 years ago at a Marriott on a time share swap and drove down to the Oahu pier to see the NCLA ship come in. We talked to many passengers disembarking at the end of the cruise and they all said the same thing - the service stunk. And several employees just left the cruise in the middle, leaving the ship short-staffed.

 

So now they are down to the one ship and play games with American territorial staffing to qualify as an American ship.

[Karynanne]

I'll give it a try and I'm sure if I get one part wrong someone will jump in.

 

there are two things to keep in mind

 

1. It is against the PVSA to transport passengers between one US port and a different US port without a distant foreign port in between. Mexico is not a distant foreign port.

 

2. Round trip in and out of the same US port, any foreign port may be visited, thus Canada, Bahamas, Mexico all qualify.

 

 

So -- round trip from San Diego to Hawaii and back to San Diego, all the ship needs to do is visit Mexico for a few hours

 

Going up the west coast, the ship can start in San Diego and end in Canada

(and obviously vice versa)

 

One way from Hawaii there is no distant foreign port to visit, so that cruise must end in Ensanada.

 

Now in the case of the OP's proposed itinerary, the cruise that starts in Hawaii has to end in Ensanada. The following cruise ends in Seattle. The OP is proposing one voyage (in essence, even though they are booked with separate booking numbers) that would start in Hawaii and end in Seattle. No distant foreign port to visit, so no passenger is supposed to travel from Hawaii to Seattle.

 

What is being proposed is a workaround whereby the passengers would disembark, be on the manifest for the transportation back to the US and then start over with another cruise, showing up on the manifest as leaving from San Diego on the bus to start cruise #2 in Mexico.

 

What isn't certain is if this violates the law. One way to look at it is, the passengers start their trip in Hawaii and end in Seattle, thus violating the PVSA. The other way to look at it is that they are two separate trips, with two separate booking numbers, the passengers don't stay on board, so they could be seen as two separate cruises.

 

Did I get it right?

 

Yes, you got it right. It's a quandry alright, and I haven't received any definitive answer...YET!

[FunCruiser56]

I am also on the Hawaii cruise, there is a complicated discussion on our roll call about this issue. There were a couple other people wanting to do the next cruise and I think were finially told no-go. Due to the PVSA. I think that even if X lets you book the second cruise you will eventually have it cancelled, it's a complicate issue for sure!

 

Bev

[fleckle]

Presently we have the Pacific Coastal Cruise, aboard Solstice booked for May, 2013. The cruise prior is a Hawaii Cruise (Embarking in Honolulu)...to Ensenada.

 

Our Pacific Coastal Cruise embarks in Ensenada. We would like to take the Hawaii cruise and then the Pacific Coastal Cruise.

 

After calling Celebrity and then the Captain's Club, I received information that stated, due to the Jones Act, we could not treat the two cruises as B2B's. But also (to make things complicated) after the first (Hawaii) cruise we had to disembark in Ensenada...board a bus back to San Diego, and then take a bus back again to Ensenada to embark on the Pacific Coastal cruise.

 

So my question is, have any of you done something similiar in your past cruise history? And did the Jones Act or Passenger Act come into play or was it discussed?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Karyn

Yes, we first ran into the PVSA about seven years ago when we tried to do something similar on another cruise line.

 

To make a very long and complicated story short, we had B2B cruises booked and paid in full, were all set to go, and then were informed shortly before leaving home that we would not be allowed to do it after all.

 

 

It looks like you are wanting to embark in Honolulu and end up in Seattle in May, 2013.

 

A work-around that completely avoids the PVSA issue would be to book a cruise from Honolulu to Vancouver instead of Ensenada.

From Vancouver, it is easy to get to Seattle.

 

But if you are wanting a B2B in order to extend your cruise, you could easily add on an Alaska cruise, from either Vancouver or Seattle.

 

 

However that would eliminate all the fun of taking the bus ride to or from Ensenada and the challenge of trying to figure out a way to circumvent the PVSA. :D

 

I realize that the suggested substitution would not provide the coastal repositioning cruise you want, but living in California affords you a lot of opportunities to take a coastal repositioning cruise at another time.

[sarafinadh]

It's a load of BS. Why hasn't this been repealed by now? It still amazes me that after all this time we still live with is archaic law. I think I get it but to me it makes no sense.

 

The reason ships are not flagged in the US is because they would then have to meet US standards for employment, environmental codes, safety regulations, and business practices which include an increased tax hit.

 

These laws, as archaic and bogus as they seem, mean that companies that want to do business here in the US but do not want to meet those domestic standards forfeit the convenience of doing business as a home flagged vessel.

 

Next time every one is going round and round over the prepaid gratuity question and how it's a cheat on the part of the cruise lines to make their price point appear smaller remember this thread.

 

As US flagged vessels they would have to meet Federal wage standards and the option of unionization would be far more likely. Those wages hidden in plain view as "Gratuities" would be actual salary. Passengers could tip in whatever manner they choose, according to their experience, with out the struggle of trying to take some responsibility for sorting out what is wages for work and what is actual gratuity, expressing gratitude, for extra excellent service.

 

And the cost of cruising would go up. WAY up. At that point I suspect that many cruisers would be more than happy to go thru the gyrations involved in managing foreign flagged transit issues.

[unixgeek]

Cruise #1 has to end in Mexico.

 

Now, the interesting thing is that even in the example given in this Wikipedia article, that deals with the hub and spoke nature of aviation, there is a workaround. The example is that a passenger wanting to travel from Boston to Seattle can book a ticket to Toronto, and a second ticket from Toronto to the west coast, but cannot travel on a single Air Canada ticket, as that would be allowing a foreign flagged airline to operate domestic US service. So it might appear that there SHOULD be a workaround for cruise ships. Maybe. Sort of.

 

That would seem to meet the same analogue as a B2B:

 

Airline:

 

Tkt # 1111111111111 BOS -> TOR

Tkt # 2222222222222 TOR -> SEA

 

Cruise:

 

Booking # AAAAAAA Long Beach -> Ensenada

Booking # BBBBBBB Ensenada -> Seattle

 

Why would those be any different, logically? I guess IF you fully disembark, taking all your luggage with you, etc., etc. that would be the functional equivalent.

 

But you could always "forget" your luggage and claim it at Lost And Found when you come back :-)

[Cruise Junky]

That would seem to meet the same analogue as a B2B:

 

Airline:

 

Tkt # 1111111111111 BOS -> TOR

Tkt # 2222222222222 TOR -> SEA

 

Cruise:

 

Booking # AAAAAAA Long Beach -> Ensenada

Booking # BBBBBBB Ensenada -> Seattle

 

Why would those be any different, logically? I guess IF you fully disembark, taking all your luggage with you, etc., etc. that would be the functional equivalent.

 

But you could always "forget" your luggage and claim it at Lost And Found when you come back :-)

 

In this scenario, it wouldn't be the same plane. There's nothing actually wrong with booking a lot of these B2Bs, you just can't do it on the same ship.

[smeyer418]

yes except a cruise to no where doesn't transport anyway anyplace is allowed.

 

Is this allowed? I am not sure.

 

The issue is whether you permanently disembarked in Mexico and started a new cruise.

 

i.e. Is the act of getting off in Mexico a permanent disembarkation or not?

because if it is then you start a new cruise upon your return to the ship. Ensenada to Seattle by itself is allowed because you started in a foreign port and are not being transported between two different US ports. San Diego to Ensenada is allowed allowed because the trip "ends" in a foreign port.

 

 

So while different reservation numbers may be helpful the reality of what happens is more important...

It may be that ICE who enforces this on the west coast is reinterpreting the term "permanent"....

[DrKoob]

The more original poster will hopefully get his cruise in.

 

But can we all just agree that this is ridiculous when it comes to cruising and should be changed? I fully understand how it stops unfair competition with domestic air carriers but since there are NO US flagged cruise ships (OK, Norwegian has one that no one wants to sail on) there is no reason for this law to exist anymore. Write your congressperson. Not that they don't have anything more important to do. :D

[TLCOhio]

The reason ships are not flagged in the US is because they would then have to meet US standards for employment, environmental codes, safety regulations, and business practices which include an increased tax hit. These laws, as archaic and bogus as they seem, mean that companies that want to do business here in the US but do not want to meet those domestic standards forfeit the convenience of doing business as a home flagged vessel. Next time every one is going round and round over the prepaid gratuity question and how it's a cheat on the part of the cruise lines to make their price point appear smaller remember this thread. As US flagged vessels they would have to meet Federal wage standards and the option of unionization would be far more likely. Those wages hidden in plain view as "Gratuities" would be actual salary. Passengers could tip in whatever manner they choose, according to their experience, with out the struggle of trying to take some responsibility for sorting out what is wages for work and what is actual gratuity, expressing gratitude, for extra excellent service. And the cost of cruising would go up. WAY up. At that point I suspect that many cruisers would be more than happy to go thru the gyrations involved in managing foreign flagged transit issues.

 

Interesting points and questions above. My vote is for the Jones to be . . . SUNK!! . . . down to the bottom of the deep sea. See this link:

http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/what-is-the-jones-act-and-what-it-means-for-cruise-travelers/

 

It's a stupid, silly Federal law. It makes things bad, near impossible for providing better cruise options along the western coast, along the Atlantic including New England, in and around Hawaii, etc.

 

The Jones-Shafroth Act (the Jones Act as it is known) was signed into law on March 2, 1917, by President Woodrow Wilson. WOW!! Back before airlines, television, Internet, cell phones, interstate highways, jet airplanes, a world economy, etc. It is suppose to "promote a healthy U.S-Flag fleet and protect that fleet from unfair foreign competition". BUT, we know what is the real game. I have phrase for it. The two initials are BS.

 

Adding to the crazy law is that we have these U.S.-based cruise lines operating with ships flagged out of "foreign" ports using this law to play games, protect themselves from competition, etc. Not good!!

 

If this law was dumped, it would allow lots more creativity in scheduling and port options for the consumers. The website above noted: "Recently Senator John McCain introduced legislation to repeal the 'Jones Act.' The motivating issue here was allowing foreign ships with foreign crews to help in the BP cleanup. Depending which political party you believe, this would either increase the number of ships that could help in the gulf, or do nothing meaningful, but greatly undermine the U.S. shipping industry. While the legislation is a longshot, it would also matter greatly to cruise travelers."

 

Am I missing something important or vital to national security on who is protecting whom with this outdated 1917 law?

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Did a June 7-19, 2011, Solstice cruise from Barcelona that had stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Enjoyed great weather and a wonderful trip. Dozens of wonderful visuals with key highlights, tips, comments, etc., on these postings. We are now at 87,176 views for this live/blog re-cap on our first sailing with Celebrity and much on wonderful Barcelona. Check these postings and added info at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

[DrKoob]

I'm with you..SINK IT!

 

And no, I don't want any US flagged ships. Just allow foreign flagged ships to sail from US port to US port.

 

Then maybe we will finally get some better cruising on the West Coast.

 

It would be a good thing for EVERY port. A cruise ship brings in big tourism bucks. Here in Seattle they estimate that every cruise ship leaving for Alaska brings in 3 million dollars. Think how great it would be to be able to sail to San Diego, LA, Santa Barbara, Long Beach, Monterey, San Francisco, Hawaii, etc from Seattle. Oh happy day! And look how much money in tourism $$$ those cities would reap.

[rwr235]

self-delete

[rwr235]

Interesting points and questions above. My vote is for the Jones to be . . . SUNK!! . . . down to the bottom of the deep sea. See this link:

http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/what-is-the-jones-act-and-what-it-means-for-cruise-travelers/

 

It's a stupid, silly Federal law. It makes things bad, near impossible for providing better cruise options along the western coast, along the Atlantic including New England, in and around Hawaii, etc.

 

The Jones-Shafroth Act (the Jones Act as it is known) was signed into law on March 2, 1917, by President Woodrow Wilson. WOW!! Back before airlines, television, Internet, cell phones, interstate highways, jet airplanes, a world economy, etc. It is suppose to "promote a healthy U.S-Flag fleet and protect that fleet from unfair foreign competition". BUT, we know what is the real game. I have phrase for it. The two initials are BS.

 

Adding to the crazy law is that we have these U.S.-based cruise lines operating with ships flagged out of "foreign" ports using this law to play games, protect themselves from competition, etc. Not good!!

 

If this law was dumped, it would allow lots more creativity in scheduling and port options for the consumers. The website above noted: "Recently Senator John McCain introduced legislation to repeal the 'Jones Act.' The motivating issue here was allowing foreign ships with foreign crews to help in the BP cleanup. Depending which political party you believe, this would either increase the number of ships that could help in the gulf, or do nothing meaningful, but greatly undermine the U.S. shipping industry. While the legislation is a longshot, it would also matter greatly to cruise travelers."

 

Am I missing something important or vital to national security on who is protecting whom with this outdated 1917 law?

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Sorry about my previous self-deletion post....If I am reading correctly, and on-line articles are accurate...The Jones-Shafroth Act signed by President Wilson in 1917 dealt with the Citizenship of the peoples of Puerto Rico...as opposed to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (also referred to as the Jones Act), which deals with cabotage of cargo.....and is related to the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886...which deals with the transport of passengers, as opposed to cargo.

 

I have learned a lot from researching topics that appear on Cruise Critic threads !!:D

 

Hope this is correct !!

 

Woody

[TLCOhio]

If I am reading correctly, and on-line articles are accurate...The Jones-Shafroth Act signed by President Wilson in 1917 dealt with the Citizenship of the peoples of Puerto Rico...as opposed to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (also referred to as the Jones Act), which deals with cabotage of cargo.....and is related to the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886...which deals with the transport of passengers, as opposed to cargo. I have learned a lot from researching topics that appear on Cruise Critic threads !!:D Hope this is correct !! Woody[/color]

 

Hi, Woody! Yes, it's fun using Google.com to research some of these issues and questions. From

http://www.cruiseco.com/Resources/jones_act.htm

or Worldwide Cruise Associates is where I got some of my info reflecting the viewpoint of the cruise industry.

 

There is also more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

 

This news article from:

http://business.mainetoday.com/news/061003jonesact.html

notes: "Despite U.S. efforts in recent years to lower trade barriers and open borders, Congress is committed to retaining the Jones Act, as well as the 1886 Passenger Vessel Services Act, which has the same requirements for passenger ships. Critics say the Jones Act is a form of protectionism that increases costs to consumers and hurts the environment. If more goods could travel by water, they say, there would be fewer trucks on the nation's highways and less congestion."

 

This type of law has been around for some time in several version over time. This article also indicates that the trucking industry, as one examples, likes the law the way it is as it protects aspects of their business. Plus unions and a old Senator from Hawaii Not simple, easy or cheap to change!! Just like opening up Cuba, a number of law changes could dramatically change cruising and provide many opportunities for the consumer and travelers in the future.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Did a June 7-19, 2011, Solstice cruise from Barcelona that had stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Enjoyed great weather and a wonderful trip. Dozens of wonderful visuals with key highlights, tips, comments, etc., on these postings. We are now at 87,176 views for this live/blog re-cap on our first sailing with Celebrity and much on wonderful Barcelona. Check these postings and added info at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

[sarafinadh]

But can we all just agree that this is ridiculous when it comes to cruising and should be changed? I fully understand how it stops unfair competition with domestic air carriers but since there are NO US flagged cruise ships (OK, Norwegian has one that no one wants to sail on) there is no reason for this law to exist anymore. Write your congressperson. Not that they don't have anything more important to do. :D

 

 

 

I'm with you..SINK IT!

 

And no, I don't want any US flagged ships. Just allow foreign flagged ships to sail from US port to US port.

 

Then maybe we will finally get some better cruising on the West Coast.

 

It would be a good thing for EVERY port. A cruise ship brings in big tourism bucks. Here in Seattle they estimate that every cruise ship leaving for Alaska brings in 3 million dollars. Think how great it would be to be able to sail to San Diego, LA, Santa Barbara, Long Beach, Monterey, San Francisco, Hawaii, etc from Seattle. Oh happy day! And look how much money in tourism $$$ those cities would reap.

 

Ah the irony.

 

If it keeps he cost of cruising down then that's all that matters huh? Keeps these huge bloated ships sailing with slave labour on the high seas for the pleasure of the western consumer then it's all good? Accomodates "good itineraries" for the masses of entitled travelers.

 

No one wants to sail on the US flagged ship because the help are too uppity, and don't want to labour under hateful conditions for inadequate wages? Lucky that all those poor slobs from other places are willing to suck it up and work 18 hour days for months on end making towel animals and laying out chocolates, having special salad dressing made to please passengers who, at the end of the day, make or break a paycheck on a personal whim.

 

Yeah, The law was created in another time and place for somewhat different reasons, but the agrument could be made that here and now it does serve a purpose of thwarting an industry that makes shambles of decent hiring practies.

 

Hard to tell who the pirates are...

[DrKoob]

Ah the irony.

 

If it keeps he cost of cruising down then that's all that matters huh? Keeps these huge bloated ships sailing with slave labour on the high seas for the pleasure of the western consumer then it's all good? Accomodates "good itineraries" for the masses of entitled travelers.

 

No one wants to sail on the US flagged ship because the help are too uppity, and don't want to labour under hateful conditions for inadequate wages? Lucky that all those poor slobs from other places are willing to suck it up and work 18 hour days for months on end making towel animals and laying out chocolates, having special salad dressing made to please passengers who, at the end of the day, make or break a paycheck on a personal whim.

 

Yeah, The law was created in another time and place for somewhat different reasons, but the agrument could be made that here and now it does serve a purpose of thwarting an industry that makes shambles of decent hiring practies.

 

Hard to tell who the pirates are...

 

If your signature is correct then you haven't been on your first X cruise. When you are on board ask ANY crew member if they would rather work someplace else. I have. And not a single one has ever said anything different. If it were truly slave labor then the crew members would not be allowed to leave. They are free to go whenever they want. I have run into crew members on other lines who weren't that happy with their jobs, but never on X.

 

Working on a ship is hard work. Tough work. But it is infinitely better than 90% of the jobs available to the crew members at home. And many make much, much more than they could at home. And because it is hard work, Americans of the age who work on cruise ships won't do it. Here in Washington we are in a major push to stop farmers from hiring illegal aliens. You know what happens? No one else will do the work. Not even when offered $11-$12 an hour. That's above our minimum wage by quite a bit. Americans in their 20s and 30s don't want to work that hard. (Yes, I am an fairly old curmudgeon.) Not even with unemployment over 8%. It's amazing what unemployed people in the US won't do.

 

To be honest, I really don't care if the cost of cruising were higher. I just want to cruise on a regular basis, pay a fair price and not have to enrich the airlines to fly someplace.

 

One last thing sarafinadh, why are you going on a cruise or posting on a cruising board? You obviously don't like the industry. If you really feel this way, maybe you shouldn't travel at all. If you think crew members are underpaid and poorly treated, you should see what tour guides, hotel workers, restaurant workers and others in the tourism industry are paid in their own countries.

 

Jim

[sarafinadh]

If your signature is correct then you haven't been on your first X cruise. When you are on board ask ANY crew member if they would rather work someplace else. I have. And not a single one has ever said anything different. If it were truly slave labor then the crew members would not be allowed to leave. They are free to go whenever they want. I have run into crew members on other lines who weren't that happy with their jobs, but never on X.

 

Working on a ship is hard work. Tough work. But it is infinitely better than 90% of the jobs available to the crew members at home. And many make much, much more than they could at home. And because it is hard work, Americans of the age who work on cruise ships won't do it. Here in Washington we are in a major push to stop farmers from hiring illegal aliens. You know what happens? No one else will do the work. Not even when offered $11-$12 an hour. That's above our minimum wage by quite a bit. Americans in their 20s and 30s don't want to work that hard. (Yes, I am an fairly old curmudgeon.) Not even with unemployment over 8%. It's amazing what unemployed people in the US won't do.

 

To be honest, I really don't care if the cost of cruising were higher. I just want to cruise on a regular basis, pay a fair price and not have to enrich the airlines to fly someplace.

 

One last thing sarafinadh, why are you going on a cruise or posting on a cruising board? You obviously don't like the industry. If you really feel this way, maybe you shouldn't travel at all. If you think crew members are underpaid and poorly treated, you should see what tour guides, hotel workers, restaurant workers and others in the tourism industry are paid in their own countries.

 

Jim

Jim,

 

It's tough all over, noted. Life isn't fair. I teach my daughter that all the time. Someone who is starving will think a can of alpo is a pretty good meal.

 

But the whinging about how INCONVENIENT the law makes back to back bookings is just so distasteful. Oh my god, I may not be able to take TWO cruises back to back with out having to take a bus ride and change cabins.

 

Having lived in third world countries and traveled extensively I can say that while sometimes the working (and living) conditions may suck, they are not juxtaposed against the overwhelmingly wasteful backdrop an industry such as the cruiselines provide. The contrast is disturbing.

 

I get that there are plenty, such as yourself, who pay the fare and take the trip and would pay more if the industy was set on its heels and made to step up to the plate regarding employee treatment. I suspect you are not one of the outraged who get on their high horses about the general unfairness of the tipping issue either.

 

But there are even more who clearly love the fact that they took their first week long Carribean Cruise in '92 for $800 and are still traveling that same trip for the same price. And do not even acknowledge to themselves that in essence they do so because of the working conditions of the thousands of behind the scene employees, most of whom are never seen by the passengers.

 

As for my lack of cruising chops? Cruising has never appealed to me, for a number of reasons. I am on the upcoming one because it's what Mom and Dad want to do for their 50th anniversary. End of story.

 

I am here because I like to be an informed traveler and have found that there is a great deal of valuable information and assistance avaliable here. Using that body of knowledge I have done my best to make arrangements for my (immediate) family to make the most of what time we will have in Alaska and Vancouver. I have also provided help to the extended family by passing on the information. We will all have a more enjoyable trip because of the energy I have invested and because of the time others have given here as well.

 

I have tried to provide helpful information here on topics that I am very knowledgable about and and have offered guidance in areas where I have become an accidental expert. Go ahead, ask me about beverage packages; -)

 

For the most part I have stayed out of threads that were clearly pointless for me to participate in, and ignored small minded folks who, when made uncomfortable by my observations, directed me to that limbo of all purgatories, Carnival, and just considered the source.

 

I don't expect to change anyones mind here. The people with the vision and decency to be honest about the dynamic don't need me to point it out to them, and those who refuse to see... well, there are none so blind... but still, it seemed worth making those who are in the middle somewhere (and aren't we all, most of the time, on most issues) take a moment to think.

 

That's all, just think.

[LeftcoastBC]

Do any of you experts have a clue why sometimes they disembark the Hawaii cruises in Ensenada and sometimes they just stop there and then take the ship with all the pax back to San Diego. We are doing a Hawaii RT on Century in November and we stop in Ensenada from 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm on our last day then embark to San Diego. Why does the OP's Solstice cruise have to disembark and be bussed to SD?

 

Jim

 

I am an expert and became one even more while in the Martini bar in years past (mostly with you :D). They go to Mexico on our SD/Hawaii return cruise cause it is a great Port with all sorts of sights to see and one winery. It also lets them have some leway in the time frame of actually making it back on time to start the next cruise. It's such a short overnighter to SD from down there. eh!

 

JONESIE and the PSVA guys are outdated but I can't afford to cruise on a ship regulated by US labo (u) r laws. Living here (Canada) is bad enough ;)

 

Now if that is not a good enough answer...and I suspect strongly that it's not.... I guess you figured it out by now. We gotta go to a foreign port on a Itinerary from one US port and back to that same port.

 

To the OP.. You are outta luck on the second cruise.

 

FYI. Naniamo that little city that could on Vancouver Island has a Harbour and pier set up now that CAN take the Solstice.

 

I can't imagine what will happen in Victoria when they try to dock in any kind of weather other than "Flat" water.

 

Cheers.. Go Mariners ...

[smeyer418]

The Passenger Vessel services act regulates passengers. The Jones Act regulates goods and is also workers compensation for sailors.

In any case, the same rule(but not the same law) that governs foreign flagged ships governs foreign flagged airlines. This would be 100,000 of jobs that would no longer be American nationals. It also governs quaint things like ferries, tugs, the barges on the waterways etc...millions of jobs. It was originally created to benefit American ship building industry...not Unions which were at the time illegal. so besides everything being made in China you want this to change too. BTW the cruise industry is not asking for any change. they know that a change might make them pay US wages and benefits no matter where the ship is flagged.

see CLIA

 

http://www.cruising.org/regulatory/cruise-industry-policies/passenger-services-act

[TLCOhio]

Jim, It's tough all over, noted. Life isn't fair. I teach my daughter that all the time. But the whinging about how INCONVENIENT the law makes back to back bookings is just so distasteful. Oh my god, I may not be able to take TWO cruises back to back with out having to take a bus ride and change cabins. Having lived in third world countries and traveled extensively I can say that while sometimes the working (and living) conditions may suck, they are not juxtaposed against the overwhelmingly wasteful backdrop an industry such as the cruiselines provide. The contrast is disturbing. I am here because I like to be an informed traveler and have found that there is a great deal of valuable information and assistance avaliable here. I have tried to provide helpful information here on topics that I am very knowledgable about and and have offered guidance in areas where I have become an accidental expert. I don't expect to change anyones mind here. The people with the vision and decency to be honest about the dynamic don't need me to point it out to them, and those who refuse to see... well, there are none so blind... but still, it seemed worth making those who are in the middle somewhere (and aren't we all, most of the time, on most issues) take a moment to think. That's all, just think.

 

There has been a very interesting range of information AND OPINION coming from Sara and DrKoob. While I am not from the West Coast and San Francisco, I come from the "sensible" Midwest and Ohio where both Presidential candidates were battling, toe-to-toe, yesterday, at the same time. I don't like the hint that me or others wanting to dump the Jones Act are lacking in "vision and decency to be honest". I am fairly experienced and well-read. I don't consider myself to be dishonest, lacking vision and/or indecent. I strongly hope Sara was not implying that highly negative label towards those of us who have raised what I consider as legitimate public policy questions affecting cruising.

 

Having been in 22 different countries in Europe, plus at various stops in South America, plus Cuba, etc., etc., I have traveled a decent amount during four cruises in Europe and during land trips there. I also have followed history/world issues very closely for four-plus decades. The economy and what's "fair" is a challenging, somewhat impossible subject to solve and answer. Lots of people have different theories on what works and what has failed (and why). We'll see more in Greece and Europe this weekend and during the coming weeks for how all of their supposed "fixes" and being "fair" are working to solve their past mis-management and economic choices. Keynesian economic theory and practices does not seem to be working well, in my view.

 

NOW, back to cruising, my main viewpoint is that IF the Jones Act was gone and/or fixed, honestly, the cruise industry could be smarter and more creative in designing schedules to better serve customers and their travel interests/needs. The cruise industry is now way over-built and poorly positioned for the current economy in Europe, etc. They need to shift some of their schedules and ships.

 

Like DrKoob, I have chatted with the staff and researched on the conditions and challenges in many of the countries where they come from. I think Sara is a little too much over the top in a San Francisco mentality/way with her claim/attack as expressed by her words/attack "Keeps these huge bloated ships sailing with slave labour on the high seas for the pleasure of the western consumer then it's all good?"

 

We live in a world economy that is different and more challenging that what existed in 1917. This Federal law needs to be fixed in a smart way, not just to protect a few rich cruise industry owners, but to better serve customers and those wanting to travel and experience more of the world in an efficient manner.

 

I don't think that is being dishonest and/or lacking in decency and vision.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Did a June 7-19, 2011, Solstice cruise from Barcelona that had stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Enjoyed great weather and a wonderful trip. Dozens of wonderful visuals with key highlights, tips, comments, etc., on these postings. We are now at 87,298 views for this live/blog re-cap on our first sailing with Celebrity and much on wonderful Barcelona. Check these postings and added info at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

[DrKoob]

There has been a very interesting range of information AND OPINION coming from Sara and DrKoob. While I am not from the West Coast and San Francisco, I come from the "sensible" Midwest and Ohio where both Presidential candidates were battling, toe-to-toe, yesterday, at the same time. I don't like the hint that me or others wanting to dump the Jones Act are lacking in "vision and decency to be honest". I am fairly experienced and well-read. I don't consider myself to be dishonest, lacking vision and/or indecent. I strongly hope Sara was not implying that highly negative label towards those of us who have raised what I consider as legitimate public policy questions affecting cruising.

 

Having been in 22 different countries in Europe, plus at various stops in South America, plus Cuba, etc., etc., I have traveled a decent amount during four cruises in Europe and during land trips there. I also have followed history/world issues very closely for four-plus decades. The economy and what's "fair" is a challenging, somewhat impossible subject to solve and answer. Lots of people have different theories on what works and what has failed (and why). We'll see more in Greece and Europe this weekend and during the coming weeks for how all of their supposed "fixes" and being "fair" are working to solve their past mis-management and economic choices. Keynesian economic theory and practices does not seem to be working well, in my view.

 

NOW, back to cruising, my main viewpoint is that IF the Jones Act was gone and/or fixed, honestly, the cruise industry could be smarter and more creative in designing schedules to better serve customers and their travel interests/needs. The cruise industry is now way over-built and poorly positioned for the current economy in Europe, etc. They need to shift some of their schedules and ships.

 

Like DrKoob, I have chatted with the staff and researched on the conditions and challenges in many of the countries where they come from. I think Sara is a little too much over the top in a San Francisco mentality/way with her claim/attack as expressed by her words/attack "Keeps these huge bloated ships sailing with slave labour on the high seas for the pleasure of the western consumer then it's all good?"

 

We live in a world economy that is different and more challenging that what existed in 1917. This Federal law needs to be fixed in a smart way, not just to protect a few rich cruise industry owners, but to better serve customers and those wanting to travel and experience more of the world in an efficient manner.

 

I don't think that is being dishonest and/or lacking in decency and vision.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Did a June 7-19, 2011, Solstice cruise from Barcelona that had stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Enjoyed great weather and a wonderful trip. Dozens of wonderful visuals with key highlights, tips, comments, etc., on these postings. We are now at 87,298 views for this live/blog re-cap on our first sailing with Celebrity and much on wonderful Barcelona. Check these postings and added info at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

 

Well said Terry!

[Algebralovr]

Working on a ship is hard work. Tough work. But it is infinitely better than 90% of the jobs available to the crew members at home. And many make much, much more than they could at home. And because it is hard work, Americans of the age who work on cruise ships won't do it. Here in Washington we are in a major push to stop farmers from hiring illegal aliens. You know what happens? No one else will do the work. Not even when offered $11-$12 an hour. That's above our minimum wage by quite a bit. Americans in their 20s and 30s don't want to work that hard. (Yes, I am an fairly old curmudgeon.) Not even with unemployment over 8%. It's amazing what unemployed people in the US won't do.

 

You got me diverted - sorry. I work in education and I see on a very regular basis exactly this. Way too many of our young people definitely won't work as hard as a cruise ship requires. I'm also not surprised that the farmers can't find people to work even for $11 - 12 per hour. After all, with all the programs out there, why should they demean themselves to hard work when they can sit at home and collect a check:mad: Way too many of them get someone else to pay their rent and give them $$ for food, and think they should be given an easy job where they can do not much most of the day and get paid for it.

 

I assume that most people who cruise have or used to have jobs and save for what they want and need. I know that I have worked 3-4 jobs at a time to have what I want and I have tried to set an example for my children that to have a good life, you have to work for it. But I know that not all see it that way. Last night at dinner, I ran into a young person who quit her waitress job because it just wasn't fun and she got tired of the BS from the patrons. Really?

 

I wish more of our young people would understand how hard their parents worked to give them the life they enjoy. If they were willing to do the kind of work we see people doing on cruise ships, I really wonder if we would have the unemployment we currently have.

[DrKoob]

You got me diverted - sorry. I work in education and I see on a very regular basis exactly this. Way too many of our young people definitely won't work as hard as a cruise ship requires. I'm also not surprised that the farmers can't find people to work even for $11 - 12 per hour. After all, with all the programs out there, why should they demean themselves to hard work when they can sit at home and collect a check:mad: Way too many of them get someone else to pay their rent and give them $$ for food, and think they should be given an easy job where they can do not much most of the day and get paid for it.

 

I assume that most people who cruise have or used to have jobs and save for what they want and need. I know that I have worked 3-4 jobs at a time to have what I want and I have tried to set an example for my children that to have a good life, you have to work for it. But I know that not all see it that way. Last night at dinner, I ran into a young person who quit her waitress job because it just wasn't fun and she got tired of the BS from the patrons. Really?

 

I wish more of our young people would understand how hard their parents worked to give them the life they enjoy. If they were willing to do the kind of work we see people doing on cruise ships, I really wonder if we would have the unemployment we currently have.

 

WOW Barb, we see the same things. I used to teach and now sell a product in schools (yearbooks) and I am in high schools every day. I see exactly what you are saying. I am very scared about the quality of kids we are producing. And it isn't the schools that are doing this. It's the parents who are enabling it. They not only continue to support their kids after they are out of school but when they are in school they make every excuse in the book for them. I don't know about you, but my parents attitude was (as well as mine with my kids) if you mess up in school, you are in double trouble at home. Today's parents say, if you get in trouble in school, we'll get you out of it. You must be right. You're my darling child. Oh, please!

 

My wife works in the corporate world and she sees it with their new hires. Those under 30 come to work and sit at their desks watching their iPads or iPhones, texting, making personal phone calls and just about everything else but working. We talk about it every night. It's gotten to the point where her company won't hire people right out of college, even with an MBA.

 

Our kids are in their early 30s and even they have noticed it. It seems to be the generation right behind them. My son is a manager at Costco. Worked there for 13+ years. It amazes me when he tells me that someone in his dept. just stops coming to work. They don't call, they don't quit. They just don't show up. Costco pasy VERY well. The benefits (including twice yearly profit sharing) are amazing. The chance for advancement is phenomenal. Sometimes he will see the person who failed to show later and asks why they just walked away, they just say, "It was getting boring, man."

 

The chances of this generation working on a cruise ship are slim and none.