I hate the Jones Act!!!!!!!!!

[roohound]

So I'm doing the May 8th Coral Princess Vancouver to Whittier cruise and heard about these *great* deals on the previous 2 day repositioning cruise from San Fran to Vancouver, May 6th. ($233 for 2 of us in a BB!)

 

DH and I went scrambling.....he was calling our air carrier and I called my TA. She got on the phone and Princess and got back with me and said I'm really, really sorry, but we can't book that.

 

Oh, it's sold out?

 

No, there are cabins available. But it would be a violation of the Jones Act.

 

Um, correct me if I'm wrong....Jones Act says if you leave from a US port you have to stop at a foreign port. We'd leave from San Fran (US port) and arrive in Vancouver (foreign port) and we're talking 2 separate cruises here.

 

She agreed with me and was totally befuddled and suggested I call Princess for more info.

 

The guy there said since we wouldn't be off the ship for a 24 hour period it was a violation of the Jones Act.

 

My God, now I know what a total PITA our Hawaii cruise buddies go through. Of course, I know on some of the Hawaii cruises (or is it the Mexican Rivieria ones?) they make a quickie foreign port stop (service stop I think they call it) where more often than not, passengers aren't even allowed off the ship.

 

Bummer

 

Oh well, on the bright side, more $$$ for chocolate bananas!

[LandLockedInAZ]

On our recent HAL RT Hawaii cruise, the captain admitted to us that all they do at the Mexican port is stop the ship long enough for a Mexican official to tender and board, initial something on a clipboard and get off and out of the way so we could continue on.

I agree that it has outlived it's usefullness and am surprised that, in the wake of 9/11, it hasn't been done away with already even if only to make those passengers who want to stay on US soil feel safer.

 

Next up: Diamond Princess 11/20/04!

[roohound]

I see on one of my other threads (again, sorry...I've been having lots of trouble with posting here ) Druke I said Sen Feinstein is looking at having this repealed..I say more power to you honey! And if you need a supporter, let me know

[spongerob]

Actually what you are referring to is the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). The Jones Act refers to cargo ship. The problem in the PVSA revolves around the requirement that the ship stop in a distant foreign port, not just a foreign port, if traveling from one US port to another. Ensenada is considered distant, Vancouver isn't. Caribbean ports are not considered distant. That's why I think Cartagena is still on Princess itineraries for Panama Canal crossings.

 

Even I would give Ms. Feinstein a pat on the back if she could make the changes to the law. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

Just completed:

Caribbean Princess Apr 3/04

Golden Princess Apr 10/04

Coming up:

Tahitian Princess Oct 14/04

[roohound]

ah, well, my TA said the person she dealt with at Princess had "VIOLATION OF JONES ACT" pop up on her computer terminal and the Princess person I spoke with said it was Jones Act so I was just going by what they told me.

 

Regardless, I was violating something and neither of us enjoyed it LOL

[MaryPoppinz]

Lots of ships are repositioning in that time frame. Is there another ship that would put you into Vancouver on May 7th, and then spend the night there before jumping on Coral May 8th?

 

"I'm gonna book myself on that Princess Cruise."

-- Fox Mulder, X-Files 'Three Words'

[tadjr]

This is a link from a Hawaii website that briefly explains these acts. I would think that with the provision regarding operating a route "until an American carrier enters the markets. Similarly, foreign vessels may transport passengers between Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland as long as a U.S. carrier does not provide such service" would clear the way for legislation to open up the cruise ship industry to operate the same way so long as no US ships are offering the same routing. There are very few (and small) ships operating US-US routes. I would think that keeping that provision would be more than sufficent to let the major cruise lines operate more US-US routes.

 

Ryndam Pacific Coastal May 3

 

Dawn Princess Alaska May 17

[roohound]

I'm not sure who else is repositioning in that time period besides the Coral (leaving San Fran on 5/6) and the Dawn leaving LA on 5/7...and we leave Vancouver on the 8th.

 

DH said it makes for a good experience for next year. We may try the jumping ship thing then

[Guest]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I agree that it has outlived it's usefullness and am surprised that, in the wake of 9/11, it hasn't been done away with already even if only to make those passengers who want to stay on US soil feel safer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In actuality, I think the tightened security since 9/11 has made this more of an issue. Seems that before 9/11, cruise lines would skirt around the act - specifically the requirement that you stay in Vancouver 24 hours to fulfill the word or law - but now since passenger rosters are more carefully scrutinized, they can't do it anymore...

 

I was denied the same kind of passage last spring when Star Princess went from Los Angeles to Vancouver then to Seattle. It would have made a three day cruise into a four day one and I was planning on spending a couple of days in Seattle. As it was, I flew home from Vancouver - there were, however, a number of passengers who stayed on through to Seattle. At least Princess is becoming consistent in it's booking practices (evidenced by the warning their system is giving their representatives when trying to book this kind of itinerary).

 

-------------------------

Sun Princess, 03/2004; Pacific Princess, 07/2003; Star Princess, 05/2003; Grand Princess, 10/2002; Grand Princess, 10/2002; Sun Princess, 05/2001; Sun Princess, 04/2001; Sun Princess, 09/2000; Sun Princess, 09/2000; Regal Princess, 10/1999; Sun Princess, 08/1998; Holiday, 05/1998; Westerdam, 09/1997; Regal Princess, 11/1996; Royal Odyssey, 09/1995; Starward, 11/1993

 

 

[Guest]

Oh and by the way - remember that if you do manage to get on board for the additional leg, and you get caught, the fines are your responsibility...not the cruise line.

 

-------------------------

Sun Princess, 03/2004; Pacific Princess, 07/2003; Star Princess, 05/2003; Grand Princess, 10/2002; Grand Princess, 10/2002; Sun Princess, 05/2001; Sun Princess, 04/2001; Sun Princess, 09/2000; Sun Princess, 09/2000; Regal Princess, 10/1999; Sun Princess, 08/1998; Holiday, 05/1998; Westerdam, 09/1997; Regal Princess, 11/1996; Royal Odyssey, 09/1995; Starward, 11/1993

 

 

[yensid1071]

I'm not surprised to hear about this kind of legislation. This is a bit off topic, but here in DFW, we deal with the "Wright Amendment" which states that any flight leaving from or arriving to Dallas Love Field (where Southwest Airlines is based) cannot go further than one state. I'd have to stop and pick up another flight in another TX city or another state such as LA, OK or NM in order to get *anywhere* else in the country. It was put into effect so they could make DFW the main airport here, but, like the legislation mentioned here, I agree that some have simply outlived their usefulness.

 

Caribbean Princess - 4/2004

Dawn Princess - 12/2003

Sea Princess - 12/2000

Emerald Seas - 7/1984

[roohound]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bdjam:

Oh and by the way - remember that if you do manage to get on board for the additional leg, and you get caught, the fines are your responsibility...not the cruise line.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Actually, my choice of words was wrong..by jumping ship I mean do what we could have done this time...take a repo cruise, spend a night or 2 or 3 in Vancouver or Seattle or wherever and then do the Alaska cruise. I think most of the repo cruises that are on different ships come in at different days so there would be no law violation

[spongerob]

That's a clever solution to the problem. Vancouver is worth spending a couple days visiting. You can even do a mini-cruise by taking the ferry over to Victoria.

 

Just completed:

Caribbean Princess Apr 3/04

Golden Princess Apr 10/04

Coming up:

Tahitian Princess Oct 14/04

[roohound]

I would love some time in Vancouver..this trip we are spending the night in Seattle and then transferring to Vancouver so I know I won't get to really experience any of that lovely city

 

Gives me a reason to book next year...not like I really needed one

[GloriaF]

Capt Fabio Amitrano of the Regal Princess called it the Jones Act also. April 5-20 Hawaii cruise we were there 15 minutes at most, dropped anchor, a Mexican official boarded and signed off, then we were on our way. The captain said we paid $20,000 for that "privilege".

 

Gloria

 

Grand Princess, Eastern, April 2001

Grand Princess, Western,April 2002

Regal to Hawaii, April 5-20, 2004

[lstone19]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spongerob:

Actually what you are referring to is the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). The Jones Act refers to cargo ship. The problem in the PVSA revolves around the requirement that the ship stop in a _distant_ foreign port, not just a foreign port, if traveling from one US port to another. Ensenada is considered distant, Vancouver isn't. Caribbean ports are not considered distant. That's why I think Cartagena is still on Princess itineraries for Panama Canal crossings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No, Ensenada is not a "distant foreign port". But the cruises that call there are round-trip cruise. A round-trip cruise starting and ending in the U.S. can go to any foreign port. A one-way from one U.S. port (e.g. Ft. Lauderdale) to another U.S. port (e.g. San Francisco) must stop at a "distant foreign port" (e.g. Aruba). Note that "distant foreign ports" are specifically defined in whatever law spells this all out.

What confuses people with Ensenada is that it is also used as the endpoint for some cruises to/from Hawaii. So people want to know why it's OK to use Ensenada as the foreign port on these one-way cruises and not others. The difference, of course, is that on these, Ensenada is an end-point, not an intermediate port. It is always OK for a foreign ship to carry passengers from a foreign port to a U.S. port or vice versa.

As the original poster found, when booking back-to-back, it's all considered as one cruise for purposes of the PVSA. So let's say we have a ship (as some do during Alaska migration season) going Ft. Lauderdale to a distant foreign port to San Diego, then to Ensenada, and then on to Honolulu. The line will typically sell that as two cruises - Ft. Lauderdale to San Diego and Ensenada to Honolulu. Passengers can't go San Diego to Honolulu becuase that violates the PVSA. But they can book the two back-to-back and stay on the ship for San Diego to Ensenada because in the eyes of the PVSA, they've booked Ft. Lauderdale to Honolulu via a distant foreign port. So for a few hours, you and a few other passengers doing the same thing have the ship all to yourself as it makes its way from San Diego to Ensenada. Now only if I had the vacation time to do that.

 

-- Larry

 

Seaward 12/90

Southward 12/92

Sky Princess 5/93

Dawn Princess 6/01

Coral Princess 12/24/02 Cancelled

Coral Princess 12/23/03

[Hulagirl]

Thought I understood all this until now.

 

The question I have is, how does one book a back from Vancouver to Alaska and then back again on the same ship? Granted it is 2 different cruises with 2 different booking numbers, but then so would the other cruises that start in California and go to Vancouver and then start another cruise to Alaska from there. Sorry to still be confused, but I am on this one. I'm doing a short cruise from Seattle to Vancouver this coming September and had actually thought about adding another one on to California from Vancouver, but can't do that with how I'm understanding this to be.

 

Hopefully this law will be changed.

 

Thanks for any insight on this.

 

Hulagirl

 

Grand Princess Baltic Cruise

 

Star Princess Eastern Caribbean

 

Diamond Princess Northwest Cruise

 

[spongerob]

Well, THAT clears things up Larry, LOL. I think I'll just go have a big drink and forget about it. I asked about this issue some time ago and someone kindly sent me a law student's thesis on the Jones/Passenger Services Acts. Tough reading. I'm glad there wasn't a test.

 

Just completed:

Caribbean Princess Apr 3/04

Golden Princess Apr 10/04

Coming up:

Tahitian Princess Oct 14/04

[starsjohn]

This law was passed by greedy rich bankers during the gold-rush to the Yukon in the late 1800's. These bankers did this to protect their exclusive monoply on the selling of goods and shipping of passengers and supplies to the gold fields and lucurative trade routes to Hawaii. This also kept Canadian shipping out of Seattle and Portland where the bulk of the gold stampeders left from. I am afraid Sen. Fienstein is taking on Bush's major supporters and the source financing coporate America. I hope she wins.

 

John

[roohound]

Hulagirl..I'm also confused by that. I know of a few people who are doing Vancouver to Whittier and the Whittier back to Vancouver.

 

Now how is that different from going from San Fran to Vancouver and leaving Vancouver to Whittier??? Admittedly, the ship doesn't leave Whittier until something like 10pm, but it still doesn't involve a 24 hr period.

 

My head hurts LOL

[lstone19]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roohound:

Hulagirl..I'm also confused by that. I know of a few people who are doing Vancouver to Whittier and the Whittier back to Vancouver.

 

Now how is that different from going from San Fran to Vancouver and leaving Vancouver to Whittier??? Admittedly, the ship doesn't leave Whittier until something like 10pm, but it still doesn't involve a 24 hr period.

 

My head hurts LOL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Quite simple - this is 1) a round-trip and 2) starts in a Canadian port and ends in the same Canadian port so the parts of the PVSA we've discussed don't apply.

But even if we turn it around (start in Whittier and do back-to-backs to Vancouver and back), it's OK because it's a round-trip. A round-trip cruise need only go to any foreign port (or no ports at all - a cruise to nowhere). It's only the one-way cruise (e.g. San Francisco to Whittier) that needs to go to a "distant foreign port".

Remember, always look at where you board and where you disembark regardless of how the cruise line sells it. If they're the same U.S. port, you must go to at least one foreign port (or no ports at all). If they're different U.S. ports, you must go to at least one "distant foreign port". And if you embark or disembark in a foreign port (and yes, Vancouver is a foreign port), then ignore all this as these part of the PVSA do not apply.

-- Larry

 

Seaward 12/90

Southward 12/92

Sky Princess 5/93

Dawn Princess 6/01

Coral Princess 12/24/02 Cancelled

Coral Princess 12/23/03

[roohound]

Which makes sense Larry...but the explanation I was given indicated the cruises are considered separate beasts so it dind't matter.

 

It's not a huge deal, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone doing 2 7 day B2Bs.

 

I think I'm just disgruntled over the archaic law is all.

 

But hey, I'm still going for 7 days! Can't beat that!

[Guest]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Quite simple - this is 1) a round-trip and 2) starts in a Canadian port and ends in the same Canadian port so the parts of the PVSA we've discussed don't apply.

But even if we turn it around (start in Whittier and do back-to-backs to Vancouver and back), it's OK because it's a round-trip. A round-trip cruise need only go to any foreign port (or no ports at all - a cruise to nowhere). It's only the one-way cruise (e.g. San Francisco to Whittier) that needs to go to a "distant foreign port".

Remember, always look at where you board and where you disembark regardless of how the cruise line sells it. If they're the same U.S. port, you must go to at least one foreign port (or no ports at all). If they're different U.S. ports, you must go to at least one "distant foreign port". And if you embark or disembark in a foreign port (and yes, Vancouver is a foreign port), then ignore all this as these part of the PVSA do not apply.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> larry - the best explanation I've read yet...thanks!

 

-------------------------

Sun Princess, 03/2004; Pacific Princess, 07/2003; Star Princess, 05/2003; Grand Princess, 10/2002; Grand Princess, 10/2002; Sun Princess, 05/2001; Sun Princess, 04/2001; Sun Princess, 09/2000; Sun Princess, 09/2000; Regal Princess, 10/1999; Sun Princess, 08/1998; Holiday, 05/1998; Westerdam, 09/1997; Regal Princess, 11/1996; Royal Odyssey, 09/1995; Starward, 11/1993

 

 

[Coral]

So a "distant foreign port" really doesn't apply here? I have heard several times that Vancouver is a foreign port but is not a distant foreign port.

 

Who defines what is a distant foreign port or just a foreign port?

[spongerob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starsjohn:

I am afraid Sen. Fienstein is taking on Bush's major supporters and the source financing coporate America. I hope she wins.

 

John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Actually, John, a serious attempt was made to change the Jones/PSA in 1995 and 1996 by John McCain (R-NM) and Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Sam Brownback (R-KS). The bill failed to find support from other committe members and never made it to the floor. (This from the aforementioned thesis sent to me.) There is also a strong union component opposing any changes to shipping regulations.

 

Regardless of the political party in power, it seems that there is little interest in making changes, and plenty of resistance. If you want to find out more, seek the records of the Senate Merchant Marine Subcommittee.

 

Just completed:

Caribbean Princess Apr 3/04

Golden Princess Apr 10/04

Coming up:

Tahitian Princess Oct 14/04