Stupid Stupid Jones Act !!!!!!!!

[jayevee44]

Originally posted by Spongerob:

 

Catdancers is fine with their plan since they are changing ships.

 

I’m definitely not an expert on this issue. My knowledge is limited to what has been posted on the many previous threads on this subject.

 

As I understand it, changing ships by itself may not be enough to get around PSA. According to previous threads, the PSA considers b2b cruises, whether on the same ship or different ships on the same cruise line, to be a single cruise if the change occurs on the same day. If the Coral Princess were to leave Vancouver the same say as the Dawn Princess arrives in Vancouver, the two cruises combined would be considered a single cruise, originating in Seattle and ending in Los Angeles which would not be allowed because there was not a stop at a distant foreign port. Catdancers’ itinerary works because of the overnight stay.

 

If this is incorrect, please set me straight as I want to fully understand this myself.

 

Jim

[spongerob]

This has come up before here. People have disembarked one ship in Vancouver, and boarded another to return to a US port, without any problem. I think technically the law specifies that you must spend 24 hours at the interim port, but this might not be an issue.

[jayevee44]

I don't doubt that people have been able to switch ships and return on the same day.

 

I have read posts where Princess has accepted such bookings, only to have the Document Section catch it when finally docs were being issued. Kind of late to be notified that at you can't sail as planned.

 

Jim

[calikak]

When we had the issue with the PSA last fall, Princess told me that we could take the Sapphire Seattle-Vancouver and then switch ships to whichever one it was that was in Vancouver that same day. Because it was on two different ships, it wasn't seen as one cruise. But then again, the Princess reps don't always know what they're talking about.

 

I posted some info about it, including the citations for the regs, on this thread:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=168454&highlight=CFR

 

This is a quote from the regulation implementing the PSA:

 

"

(4) Embark means a passenger boarding a vessel for the duration of a specific voyage and disembark means a passenger leaving a vessel at the conclusion of a specific voyage. The terms embark and disembark are not applicable to a passenger going ashore temporarily at a coastwise port who reboards the vessel and departs with it on sailing from the port."

 

When I read this, it sounds to me like reboarding the same vessel isn't allowed, but boarding a second vessel would be OK (since you can't really "reboard" a vessel you haven't previously boarded). But not being a maritime law expert, I'd probably call whatever agency issued these rules and ask them to explain it to me. :)

[critterchick]

In "which Princess rep knows what he/she is talking about" category:

 

DH and I tried to book an LA-Vancouver, Vancouver-Seattle trip on the Diamond. The Future Cruise consultant told us right off the bat that we could not. He also told us that we had to stay in Vancouver for either 24 or 48 hours (can't remember which) before we could embark on any other ship. Now, if it was another cruiseline, I can't see how anybody would know or care, say, go up to Vancouver on Princess then switch to RCI or Holland America for an Alaska cruise, but on Princess, at least, you have to stay on land for a bit.

[kruisey]

They never bothered to return my enquiry.

I don't know how this group have a stranglehold on ships arriving in Vancouver,that is another Country...You are arriving in another country on a foreign ship end of that cruise.Princess counts the second leg Vancouver to Seattle as a new cruise Foreign port to USA port.

How can a group of people ...for their own personal reasons decide to dictate that certain foreign ports are not foreign ports when they are?

Does anyone involved with the USA shipping industry have any reason to feel threatened by not having these outdated Jones/PSA rulings? Or do you feel it is time for change?

[Druke I]

Kruisey

 

You just are not going to let it go, are you?

 

Stupid law, yes, outdated law, yes. But until it is removed from the books or modified, it is what the cruise lines have to adhere to if they want to continue to carry passengers into and from United States ports.

[abbydancer2003]

Sorry, Abby, that won't be allowed. The only reason Princess has those short cruises is to get around the laws. Catdancers is fine with their plan since they are changing ships. Princess won't let you book your trip. You could fly to Vancouver, embark there, and get off the ship right at home. Vancouver is a great city to visit.

 

My understanding is that it will cost a lot more money to fly to Vancouver. (That was the point of the Seattle/Vancouver cruise, actually - more fun than a bus from Seattle).

 

I wouldn't mind spending a day or two in Vancouver, since I've never been. I just thought it would be fun to do a one night cruise to there, since it would probably be cheaper than a hotel room and a nice dinner. Oh well, back to the bus/ferry idea.

 

This all seems pretty ridiculous to me, actually. The cruise line considers them two cruises, and I'm sure will charge us accordingly, so shouldn't the government?

 

thanks for the info, though.

 

abby

[cruiseco]

Does anyone involved with the USA shipping industry have any reason to feel threatened by not having these outdated Jones/PSA rulings?

 

There's a huge amount of water-borne traffic in some areas of the US. For example, think of all of the produce, raw materials, and manufactured goods that are transported from US cities across the Great Lakes to other US cities or down the Mississippi to other US cities. The Jones Act ensures that these are for the most part US-flagged ships with US crews working under US labor laws. Just think of the stink if the law was changed to allow Panamanian-flagged ships to haul iron ore from Duluth to Cleveland. The same reaction would occur if the PSA was abandoned and Bahamian-flagged ships were allowed to carry passengers from New Orleans to St. Louis.

 

This same idea applies to the airline industry. You can fly on Air France from Los Angeles to Paris but not from Los Angeles to Milwaukee.

 

Those are parts of the PSA and Jones Acts that will never be changed, and I don't think should be. There's an established US industry in place that is currently providing those services.

 

What I would do if ever elected Supreme Ruler would be to allow foreign owned and operated companies to provide services on a trial basis that US-based companies currently do not. Give them a year or two to see if it's profitable or feasible. For example, if Princess Cruises wants to start a regular passenger service between Los Angeles and San Francisco that would be OK as long as they are not displacing established services. If their trial period runs out or a US-based company wants to give it a try then Princess would have the option of discontinuing the route or establish a US-flagged division paying US-style wages and taxes and complying with US-style labor laws.

[calikak]

Cruiseco, that's sort of how the law works with respect to transport between Puerto Rico and the US. Here's what the reg says:

 

© An exception to the prohibition in this section is the transportation of passengers between ports in Puerto Rico and other ports in the U.S. on passenger vessels not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade. Such transportation is permitted until there is a finding under 46 U.S.C. 289c that a qualified U.S.-flag passenger vessel is available for such service.

 

Maybe a similar provision could be made for other areas where there's no current passenger boat service (i.e., the west coast). But I think that would take an act of Congress, and again, since the cruise industry isn't lobbying for it, it's probably not going to happen.

 

The other thing I've always wondered about is why the cruise lines don't just let people book these, but pass the PSA fine involved ($200 per passenger) along to the cruiser who wants to make this booking? I mean, couldn't the cruise line just tell the passenger, "You can make this booking, but because of the PSA, it's going to cost you an extra $200 per person plus administrative costs, on top of the regular fare for each leg of the b2b"? Surely there are people who would be willing to pay, maybe not on the 1-nighters, where the fare is substantially less than $200 PP, but probably on some of the Alaska/Hawaii B2B cruises, where an extra $200 PP is more of a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cruise fare for a b2b like that. That wouldn't require an act of Congress to make it happen, and it wouldn't cost the cruise lines anything because the cost would be passed along to the consumer. Of course, Congress might up the fine, but then we just go back to things the way they are now.

[kruisey]

That is a good idea I would have loved to have done the Alaska to Vancouver..Vancouver to LA then Hawaii LA for just an extra $200. There is a reason why flying is not as healthy for me....Life on the ocean wave great :)

[cruiseco]

 

The other thing I've always wondered about is why the cruise lines don't just let people book these, but pass the PSA fine involved ($200 per passenger) along to the cruiser who wants to make this booking? I mean, couldn't the cruise line just tell the passenger, "You can make this booking, but because of the PSA, it's going to cost you an extra $200 per person plus administrative costs, on top of the regular fare for each leg of the b2b"? Surely there are people who would be willing to pay, maybe not on the 1-nighters, where the fare is substantially less than $200 PP, but probably on some of the Alaska/Hawaii B2B cruises, where an extra $200 PP is more of a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cruise fare for a b2b like that. That wouldn't require an act of Congress to make it happen, and it wouldn't cost the cruise lines anything because the cost would be passed along to the consumer. Of course, Congress might up the fine, but then we just go back to things the way they are now.

 

Foreign-flagged cruise lines are always walking on egg shells when it comes to US regulations. For example, even though Carnival Corp is based out of Miami they don't pay US corporate taxes. If they were to get a reputation as a scofflaw that little loophole might just get closed. You hear it every time there's a trash-dumping case: "Why are we supporting these polluters with legal tax dodges???"

 

If I was a cruise ine executive I wouldn't risk hundreds of millions of tax savings every year for the convenience of maybe a few hundred customers.

[Jim Gallup]

Calikak,

 

Good idea about passing the fine along to the passenger.

We already tried it in Hawaii - it doesn't work.

 

First, the fine has already been increased to US$300 per person.

 

Secondly, the US Customs Department (the people who administer and collect the fines) are very touchy about this subject. They have an additional weapon that really prohibits this idea. When the Captain of a foreign flag ship violates the PSA, they assess "points" against his license. This works much the same way as traffic violations in America. When you get enough points against your license, it gets revoked, or suspended, or whatever.

Ship Captains get very nervous when we start talking about endangering their licenses. They won't go for it.

[donna5]

Before our LA-YVR coastal in May one of the couples on our coastal was also going on the Alaska. I asked how they were able to do it with the PSA. Well they called Princess and was told they couldn't and their coastal was immediatley cancelled by Princess. It was only a few weeks before the cruise. They said Princess told them, that not only the fine could be incurred, but that they could also have their luggage confiscated. I felt bad for them. I didn't expect them to call Princess. I wonder if they could have gotten away with it or if someone would have caught it.

[kruisey]

Before our LA-YVR coastal in May one of the couples on our coastal was also going on the Alaska. I asked how they were able to do it with the PSA. Well they called Princess and was told they couldn't and their coastal was immediatley cancelled by Princess. It was only a few weeks before the cruise. They said Princess told them, that not only the fine could be incurred, but that they could also have their luggage confiscated. I felt bad for them. I didn't expect them to call Princess. I wonder if they could have gotten away with it or if someone would have caught it.

Well it is to Princesses advantage to keep their ships registered in a foreign port financially...things will not change :(

Would like to thank all that gave me the explanation for these rules...I really do learn from this section of the web page....Thanks again.....Kruisey. :)

[Hei1980]

Well it is to Princesses advantage to keep their ships registered in a foreign port financially...things will not change :(

Would like to thank all that gave me the explanation for these rules...I really do learn from this section of the web page....Thanks again.....Kruisey. :)

 

We have always felt comfortable cruising out of Fort Lauderdale with the first port being Key West. If we missed our ship in FLL we knew we could board in Key West. Now I see from this board we were cruising without a clue.