The Jones Act/ Passenger Service Act - Back to Back Sailings

[lstone19]

Hi,excuse my ignorance,what is a US starboard?Cheers,Brian.

 

Cuizer2 was just making a bad joke - replacing port (left) with starboard (right).

[Cuizer2]

Cuizer2 was just making a bad joke - replacing port (left) with starboard (right).

 

Well, at the time I thought it was the starboard thing to do. :evilsmile:

Edited July 7, 2017 by Cuizer2

[Shmoo here]

I wonder if flyboy88 will return and let us know what (if anything) they found out?

[bajae]

Thank You

 

 

 

Apparently, It's not unusual...

 

 

 

Just thought I'll let you know your humor didn't go unnoticed by everyone. [emoji1319]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[STHCruising]

The Passenger Vessel Services Act creates much confusion and it seems to be interpreted differently from cruise line to cruise line and within even the same cruise line. I recently booked a back-to-back cruise that departs from a US-territory, with the second cruise ending at a port in the continental US. The onboard sales agent initially declined to book this for us, citing the PVSA. I asked her to check with her shoreside management given I had done this exact same cruise before! They then agreed to book the cruise. What I have come to understand after that experience and reading this thread, is that the key is there must be a stop at a "distant foreign port". In my case, the first cruise makes a stop at a port in Central America (considered a "distant foreign port"), and thus my back-to-back cruise is legal under the PVSA. I could not determine why the original poster's cruise was not legal, until I read that Vancouver is not consider a distant foreign port because it is in North America. I also questioned the legality of Panama Canal cruises departing from one US port and arriving at another US port on another coast; I now know why they makes stops in Columbia! PVSA.

 

The PVSA is 200 years old and I don't buy the argument that it protects US Maritime interests in the case of cruise ships. There could be so many great cruises if this distant foreign port requirement were modified. Like many regulations intended for a good purpose, it actually stifles economic opportunity.

[Cuizer2]

The Passenger Vessel Services Act creates much confusion and it seems to be interpreted differently from cruise line to cruise line and within even the same cruise line. I recently booked a back-to-back cruise that departs from a US-territory, with the second cruise ending at a port in the continental US. The onboard sales agent initially declined to book this for us, citing the PVSA. I asked her to check with her shoreside management given I had done this exact same cruise before! They then agreed to book the cruise. What I have come to understand after that experience and reading this thread, is that the key is there must be a stop at a "distant foreign port". In my case, the first cruise makes a stop at a port in Central America (considered a "distant foreign port"), and thus my back-to-back cruise is legal under the PVSA. I could not determine why the original poster's cruise was not legal, until I read that Vancouver is not consider a distant foreign port because it is in North America. I also questioned the legality of Panama Canal cruises departing from one US port and arriving at another US port on another coast; I now know why they makes stops in Columbia! PVSA.

 

The PVSA is 200 years old and I don't buy the argument that it protects US Maritime interests in the case of cruise ships. There could be so many great cruises if this distant foreign port requirement were modified. Like many regulations intended for a good purpose, it actually stifles economic opportunity.

 

You are wrong about a stop in Central America being a distant foreign port. It is not. There are no distant foreign ports in Central America.

 

It stifles economic opportunity? For who? It doesn't stifle economic opportunity for any American flagged ships. So the only stifling is for foreign flagged ships. I was not aware that the American Congress owed a duty to bolster the economic opportunities of foreign flagged ships. These ships are crewed by people from other countries, not Americans. Yes, some Americans work on these ships, but they make up a small percentage of crew. In fact, most of the positions on the ship are not ones that most Americans would even be interested in.

 

The only thing not allowed is transporting passengers from one US city to another US city. Foreign airlines face the same restriction. Many foreign flagged ships leave one US port, visit one of more US ports, (and at least one foreign port) and return to the original US. So that is not restricted.

 

I have been on two cruises that left from one US city and ended in another US city. These are two of my favorite cruises, even though the weather was not that great on one of the two cruises.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Cuizer2

[chengkp75]

The Passenger Vessel Services Act creates much confusion and it seems to be interpreted differently from cruise line to cruise line and within even the same cruise line. I recently booked a back-to-back cruise that departs from a US-territory, with the second cruise ending at a port in the continental US. The onboard sales agent initially declined to book this for us, citing the PVSA. I asked her to check with her shoreside management given I had done this exact same cruise before! They then agreed to book the cruise. What I have come to understand after that experience and reading this thread, is that the key is there must be a stop at a "distant foreign port". In my case, the first cruise makes a stop at a port in Central America (considered a "distant foreign port"), and thus my back-to-back cruise is legal under the PVSA. I could not determine why the original poster's cruise was not legal, until I read that Vancouver is not consider a distant foreign port because it is in North America. I also questioned the legality of Panama Canal cruises departing from one US port and arriving at another US port on another coast; I now know why they makes stops in Columbia! PVSA.

 

The PVSA is 200 years old and I don't buy the argument that it protects US Maritime interests in the case of cruise ships. There could be so many great cruises if this distant foreign port requirement were modified. Like many regulations intended for a good purpose, it actually stifles economic opportunity.

 

Well, its not that the cruise lines interpret this differently, its that the CSR's are not well versed with the intricacies. When you say your previous cruise departed from a "US territory", these are the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. All of these are exempt from the PVSA, so any cruise starting or ending in them may transport you to a port on the US mainland.

 

And no, a port in Central America is not a "distant" foreign port. A distant foreign port is defined as being "any port not in North or Central America or the Caribbean (except the ABC Islands), nor the Bahamas or Bermuda". Your back to back is legal because it originates in a US territory.

 

Remember, that it is the "Passenger Vessel Service Act", not the "Cruise Vessel Service Act". This is important, because of the international definition of a "passenger" vessel, which is any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers. If the PVSA were deleted, then all the ferries, commuter boats, water taxis, casino boats, duck boats, whale watching, dinner cruises, sightseeing boats, and even larger charter fishing boats, let alone the coastal and river cruises, would be eligible to flag to a flag of convenience, avoiding most US laws and most importantly the USCG safety regulations. If the PVSA were simply amended to exclude cruise vessels, it would not withstand a challenge from the above mentioned vessel owners as to why they, as passenger vessel owners as well, were being discriminated against.

[beg3yrs]

... In my case, the first cruise makes a stop at a port in Central America (considered a "distant foreign port"), and thus my back-to-back cruise is legal under the PVSA. ...

 

I now know why they makes stops in Columbia! PVSA.

 

You are wrong about a stop in Central America being a distant foreign port. It is not. There are no distant foreign ports in Central America.

...

 

Seems that STHCruising mistook Colombia to be part of Central America when it is part of South America and ports there are distant foreign ports.

[wheezedr]

The Passenger Vessel Services Act creates much confusion and it seems to be interpreted differently from cruise line to cruise line and within even the same cruise line. I recently booked a back-to-back cruise that departs from a US-territory, with the second cruise ending at a port in the continental US. The onboard sales agent initially declined to book this for us, citing the PVSA. I asked her to check with her shoreside management given I had done this exact same cruise before! They then agreed to book the cruise. What I have come to understand after that experience and reading this thread, is that the key is there must be a stop at a "distant foreign port". In my case, the first cruise makes a stop at a port in Central America (considered a "distant foreign port"), and thus my back-to-back cruise is legal under the PVSA. I could not determine why the original poster's cruise was not legal, until I read that Vancouver is not consider a distant foreign port because it is in North America. I also questioned the legality of Panama Canal cruises departing from one US port and arriving at another US port on another coast; I now know why they makes stops in Columbia! PVSA.

 

The PVSA is 200 years old and I don't buy the argument that it protects US Maritime interests in the case of cruise ships. There could be so many great cruises if this distant foreign port requirement were modified. Like many regulations intended for a good purpose, it actually stifles economic opportunity.

Actually you are misreading the act. Central American ports do not qualify as distant. However there is an amendment to the PVSA which allows ships to transport passengers from PR to the US. Since you state that your initial cruise began in a US territory that is what allows it to be okay. Distant ports include S America and the ABC islands for this purpose. Obviously if the cruise originates or terminates in another country the PVSA has no bearing.

As to the PVSA itself, its major role is with respect to a great deal of shipping movements within the US. Think of passenger ferries all over the country. Currently they are licensed and operated by American firms. Without the PVSA that might not be the case and their regulation could be considerably different.

[Cuizer2]

Seems that STHCruising mistook Colombia to be part of Central America when it is part of South America and ports there are distant foreign ports.

 

If STHCruising is taking a back to back through the Panama Canal, I would hope (s)he would know the difference between Central America an South America. There is no indication that (s)he took a B2B through the Panama Canal. Given the following statement by STHCruising ...

 

I could not determine why the original poster's cruise was not legal, until I read that Vancouver is not consider a distant foreign port because it is in North America.

STHCruising seems to be of the opinion that any foreign port is a distant foreign port. I believe that STCCruising was taking a cruise that made a port call in Central America and thus believed it to be a distant foreign port, which it is not.

 

Chengkp75 offers a different theory on why a cruise stopping in Central America might be legal, if it started or ended in a US territory.

[STHCruising]

I do know the difference between South and Central America, but clearly misspoke in my original post, thus adding to confusion. But, I realize two things now: (1) ports in Central and North America are not considered "distant" - and the reference I made regarding a prior Panama Canal cruise was to a stop in South (not Central) America any case and was thus "distant"; (2) cruises from PR (a US Territory) to the US, and Panama Canal cruises are exempt from PVSA (If I read these clarifications correctly). I appreciate the clarifications, which demonstrate why it is my belief further modification for cruise ships (not ferries, etc) would be helpful.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[VibeGuy]

Panama Canal linehaul cruises do not have a carveout from the PVSA; they still must make a distant foreign port call, which is typically at either an ABC island or Colombia/Venezuela.

[chengkp75]

And those exemptions to the PVSA granted to US territories (especially Puerto Rico), become null and void once a US flag operation enters service. They are granted under the idea of a "passenger" service that would carry people from these territories to the mainland US, to give those people living in the territories the ability to travel from the territory to the US by ship, not really for cruises, so if a ferry starts to operate between PR and the US, under US flag, all foreign flag cruises that start/end in PR and go one way to the US mainland would have to cease operation.

[RRFan]

STHCcrusing, your post is also our understanding of PVSA. And we've been told that nothing in Canada or Mexico count as a "distant port."

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Pierlesscruisers]

The PVSA is 200 years old and I don't buy...

 

Nope, it's not even 2/3's that old. It's 131 years old this year.

 

 

Tom

[thinfool]

STHCcrusing, your post is also our understanding of PVSA. And we've been told that nothing in Canada or Mexico count as a "distant port."

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

I found it interesting that Crystal did a northwest passage cruise last summer, Anchorage>Boston (I think). Turns out that, even though they called at many ports in the Canadian arctic, it was a port call in Greenland that relieved the sailing from PVSA entanglements.

[VibeGuy]

The demographics will never gel for a US-PR ferry operator - cargo is "cheap enough" with high frequencies including both container and roll-on/roll-off, and low cost airlines routinely operate aircraft capable of the mission.

[Cuizer2]

Nope, it's not even 2/3's that old. It's 131 years old this year.

 

Tom

 

[Pierlesscruisers]

 

Okay, now you've got to lead us all in singing it! :confused:

 

Tom

[Cuizer2]

Okay, now you've got to lead us all in singing it! :confused:

 

Tom

 

Turn up your speakers ...

 

[caribill]

The PVSA is 200 years old and I don't buy the argument that it protects US Maritime interests in the case of cruise ships. There could be so many great cruises if this distant foreign port requirement were modified. Like many regulations intended for a good purpose, it actually stifles economic opportunity.

 

The PVSA pre-dates cruising so the thought of how to treat cruises differently was never any part of it.

[Shmoo here]

The PVSA pre-dates cruising so the thought of how to treat cruises differently was never any part of it.

Um....no.

 

The PVSA was enacted in 1886, and, according to Wikipedia -

"The birth of leisure cruising began with the formation of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company in 1822."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_ship

[SoCalTraveler]

With regularity, someone decides to try a back-to-back which violates the PVSA, and then they appears here to announced that the fact that they can't do the itinerary they want that the PVSA is silly or outmoded. No effort is done at research, even in Wikipedia.

[flyboy88]

UPDATE :

 

I just received the following email back from CBP.

 

"Thank you for contacting the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Information Center.

 

As your itinerary involves foreign travel to Vancouver, The Jones Act/ Passenger Service Act do not apply.

 

It is our goal to provide you the best information we have in response to your question. If you follow the information provided in our response, and still need assistance, please reply to this email and we will investigate how we may further assist you.

 

Thank you again for contacting the CBP Information Center."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

UPDATE :

 

I just received the following email back from CBP.

 

"Thank you for contacting the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Information Center.

 

As your itinerary involves foreign travel to Vancouver, The Jones Act/ Passenger Service Act do not apply.

 

It is our goal to provide you the best information we have in response to your question. If you follow the information provided in our response, and still need assistance, please reply to this email and we will investigate how we may further assist you.

 

Thank you again for contacting the CBP Information Center."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Even though you have this answer from CBP, and from my experience this is not a correct answer, be prepared for Princess to not allow the booking or to have a fine levied and then have to fight to have it possibly removed. CBP's standpoint has always been that regardless of how the cruise is advertised, or booked (two separate bookings at two different times even), the physical fact that the same ship carries you from one US port to a different US port is not allowed. The fact that the CBP answer mentions a port call at Vancouver (or they think it originates in Vancouver) tells me that they have not fully understood your situation, and they think it is a closed loop cruise.

 

Good luck, and let us know what Princess does. I have my doubts.

 

As to your original post where you called HAL and they had no problem with the B2B, this is the same answer your TA got from a Princess CSR when they allowed the booking, and only the legal review team caught the PVSA error for Princess, and the HAL team would do the same. There are many reports here on CC of HAL agents booking these cruises, or similar ones, only to have a call later telling the passenger it is not allowed.

 

And, further to your OP, the mere fact of clearing customs into and out of Canada, and back to the US in Vancouver makes no difference for the PVSA. When the ship enters any port you are cleared in and out, so your situation in Vancouver is not unusual.