Am I Violating the Jones Act?

[Gonzo70]

1 minute ago, gerelmx said:

 

I call X,  and they say the same as my TA

 

You need to escalate it; it is NOT a violation. 

[tallyho8]

It all depends on who you talk to at Celebrity. The average worker who answers the phone is not qualified to answer your question. You must refer it to their superiors.

[fleckle]

1 hour ago, gatour said:

Based on the email that the OP provided, I think the red-flag was the second and third legs, which is a violation of the PVSA.  I am not sure how the first leg would impact this if taken in conjunction with the second and third legs. 

 

It doesn't matter how many legs there are for consecutive cruises.

 

On cruises where the ship does not stop at a "distant" foreign port, (which is the situation being discussed here), all that matters are where you initially board the ship and where you finally disembark.

 

Since the OP is starting out from Vancouver (which is not a US port), there is no violation of the PVSA and therefore no problem with taking this trip.

 

The problem here is the source of that erroneous letter.

Regardless of whether it was sent by a company employee or auto-generated, the source should be identified and corrected so that this does not continue to happen to other travelers in similar circumstances.

 

It is unreasonable to expect the average cruise passenger to be knowledgeable about maritime law.  Most of us had never even heard of the PVSA until we got stung by it ourselves.  Then we ended up learning more about it than we ever wanted to know.

             

                                                     

Edited August 2, 2019 by fleckle

[Cruise Junky]

Is it possible that the first leg is not linked to the other two so they’re missing the Vancouver information? 

[gerelmx]

I just write a email to onetouch,  asking them to view the whole trip (3 legs) and asking for a convincing answer, and why they delay more than a year a half to notify me, The inconvenience this is causing to me. and if the violation it's real, will I receive a compensation for the transportation, hotel, food etc.?

[Alakegirl]

Very good.....we hope it is all resolved soon

[lovecruzin]

Just thinking outloud!...Since they are 3 separate cruises is that why they say it is a violation of PVSA? Where cruise 1 originates doesn't come into play.

If cruise 1 and 2 were 1 cruise RT Vancouver then perhaps the situation would be different.

If it is infact a violation X should have known and notified you much earlier,  your TA should have realized this as well. I hope this is resolved to your satisfaction, Gerardo, it seems you have had some bad breaks relating to cruised this year. 😞 

Edited August 2, 2019 by lovecruzin

[Alakegirl]

No, the issue is....where does he board (outside the US) and where does he disembark (in the US).  The number of cruises it takes to do that is immaterial

[Turtles06]

What is the point of using a TA if the TA isn't able or willing to take this on and get it resolved?   Why isn't the TA going up the chain at Celebrity?

 

OP: I do hope this all works out for you!

[bigbenboys]

57 minutes ago, Alakegirl said:

No, the issue is....where does he board (outside the US) and where does he disembark (in the US).  The number of cruises it takes to do that is immaterial

It has been my understanding if the cruise ships were registered in the US their would not be this problem. 

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, lovecruzin said:

Just thinking outloud!...Since they are 3 separate cruises is that why they say it is a violation of PVSA? Where cruise 1 originates doesn't come into play.

If cruise 1 and 2 were 1 cruise RT Vancouver then perhaps the situation would be different.

If it is infact a violation X should have known and notified you much earlier,  your TA should have realized this as well. I hope this is resolved to your satisfaction, Gerardo, it seems you have had some bad breaks relating to cruised this year. 😞 

CBP, who is the controlling US agency for the PVSA, doesn't care how the cruises are advertised, or how they are sold (booking two cruises at one time and one later, for example), they only care where the passenger actually embarks the ship, and where the passenger "permanently" disembarks the ship.  The wording of "permanently" disembarking was added about 20-25 years ago to allow cruise ships to have port calls at multiple US ports within a closed loop cruise, as without the word "permanently", it you boarded in Miami, and got off the ship in Key West for a few hours, that would be "transportation between US ports".

5 hours ago, bigbenboys said:

It has been my understanding if the cruise ships were registered in the US their would not be this problem. 

It requires more than registering under US flag to meet the PVSA.  The ship must be owned by a US citizen or US corporation, it must be built in the US, and flagged US (including US crew).  The only US flag large cruise ship, NCL's POA, is only PVSA compliant in a limited fashion, because she was not substantially built in the US.  She can only cruise Hawaii, or between Hawaii and a US port when proceeding to/from a drydock.  This is similar to the Jones Act, where there are many US flag cargo ships that were built overseas, so they are not Jones Act compliant, and cannot carry cargo from one US port to another.

 

And, just a note, the Wiki page on the PVSA is not at all correct about the origins or justifications for the PVSA.

 

And for the OP, there is no violation here, and you need to take this as high as possible with Celebrity, and fight for written confirmation from their legal department as to the exact nature of the supposed violation before giving up.

Edited August 2, 2019 by chengkp75

[BourbonNBluesLuvr]

I suspect that what might have happened here is...someone at Celebrity recently discovered that there were individuals booked on/or trying to book the last 2 legs of the cruise...Honolulu to Vancouver, and Vancouver to LA...and realized that those 2 legs would result in a violation of the PVSA. So someone probably said "we better check the computers and see if anyone else is booked on those 2 legs"...and the OPs name popped up. So, not being familiar enough with the restrictions of the PVSA, or looking deeper to see that the OP is also booked on leg 1 of the cruise, they just sent out the email advising a violation.

 

Once this has been looked at by someone "in the know" at Celebrity, this should all be easily worked out...and the OP will be able to relax and look forward to enjoying their wonderful 28 night cruise on the Celebrity Eclipse !!

 

And to the OP...should you still not receive a positive response from Celebrity...you can advise them to log on here, and folks can school them on the PVSA...(especially marine experts like chengkp75)...who posted above me !! We can set them straight !!😁

 

Best of luck

 

BBL

Edited August 2, 2019 by BourbonNBluesLuvr

[hcat]

10 hours ago, gerelmx said:

My TA will request the late embarkation in Vancouver,  the fine is not a option. 

I will go to Victoria on Sunday and sleep one night there and embark on Monday.

I just book the Marriott Inner Harbour and a Viator tour Coach and Ferry transfer from Canada Place to Victoria Downtown.

I'm in the same cabin in the 3 legs, will ask to X do disembark only with My Back Pack and  leave the bags in the ship.

 

Thank you all for your advice

 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICP Pax Vessel Services Act Apr 2010.pdf

 

If you are happy , I  hope it works out but  hopefully X will review further .  TA and X should comp your off ship expenses for the hassle they caused with this booking....but it's a nice b2b2b

 

Not sure why you have to go to Victoria overnight but Victoria is a beautiful place if you have to spend the day and stay overnight!  

Edited August 2, 2019 by hcat

[jimbri]

Hope it all works out for you.

[awhfy]

11 hours ago, gerelmx said:

 

I call X,  and they say the same as my TA, I will call again as many of you recommend. And will insist to my TA

Gerardo, contact the Resolutions Department about this. There should be a fix to this without you leaving the ship. You are starting in a foreign port (Vancouver), transiting to Honolulu, transiting to Vancouver  & concluding in LA. There shouldn’t even be a problem. The cruiseline isn’t taking into account that you are embarking in a foreign port (Vancouver)

[varoo]

18 hours ago, gerelmx said:

My TA will request the late embarkation in Vancouver,  the fine is not a option. 

I will go to Victoria on Sunday and sleep one night there and embark on Monday.

I just book the Marriott Inner Harbour and a Viator tour Coach and Ferry transfer from Canada Place to Victoria Downtown.

I'm in the same cabin in the 3 legs, will ask to X do disembark only with My Back Pack and  leave the bags in the ship.

 

 

This plan is absurd and totally unnecessary,  (unless you just wish to spend a night in Victoria).

 

You should have simply referred this matter to the Resolutions Department, as you were previously advised to do.

 

If you had done that, the problem would already have been resolved and all the rest of the posts on this thread (including this one) would have been unnecessary. 

 

The Resolutions Department is very familiar with this situation, having dealt with it many times before.

 

[blackshirt]

Unlike some who believe there is no violation, I believe Celebrity is right that there is a violation. The issue here I’m pretty sure is disembarking leg 2 and embarking leg 3 in Vancouver on the same day. As far as the law is concerned, I believe that is treated the same as if they didn’t disembark at all and it was just a port stop. That is why embarking a day later in Victoria is OK. If leg 3 didn’t leave Vancouver until the next day, I think that would be fine too.

[cruisestitch]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.  Where is the passenger boarding the ship? Vancouver.  where is he disembarking? California.  

 

Even looking at each cruise individually, none of them by themselves violates PVSA.

 

Only by combining number 2 and number 3 do you get a violation IF YOU DON"T HAVE NUMBER 1 attached to it.  But he does.

 

someone overlooked cruise number one.  that makes all the difference.

[Gonzo70]

1 hour ago, blackshirt said:

Unlike some who believe there is no violation, I believe Celebrity is right that there is a violation. The issue here I’m pretty sure is disembarking leg 2 and embarking leg 3 in Vancouver on the same day. As far as the law is concerned, I believe that is treated the same as if they didn’t disembark at all and it was just a port stop. That is why embarking a day later in Victoria is OK. If leg 3 didn’t leave Vancouver until the next day, I think that would be fine too.

 

You can believe the Earth is flat if you’d like. This is an issue with a clear right/wrong and the facts are the OP’s itinerary does NOT violate the PVSA. 

[npcl]

1 hour ago, blackshirt said:

Unlike some who believe there is no violation, I believe Celebrity is right that there is a violation. The issue here I’m pretty sure is disembarking leg 2 and embarking leg 3 in Vancouver on the same day. As far as the law is concerned, I believe that is treated the same as if they didn’t disembark at all and it was just a port stop. That is why embarking a day later in Victoria is OK. If leg 3 didn’t leave Vancouver until the next day, I think that would be fine too.

Only if you ignore leg 1.  Where they start in Vancouver and end in Hawaii.  Since it is a B2B2B on the same ship without a break it should be considered to be one continuous trip booked from Vancouver to LA.  As such no violation

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, blackshirt said:

Unlike some who believe there is no violation, I believe Celebrity is right that there is a violation. The issue here I’m pretty sure is disembarking leg 2 and embarking leg 3 in Vancouver on the same day. As far as the law is concerned, I believe that is treated the same as if they didn’t disembark at all and it was just a port stop. That is why embarking a day later in Victoria is OK. If leg 3 didn’t leave Vancouver until the next day, I think that would be fine too.

No, you are not "disembarking" in Victoria, and "embarking" again the same day, any more than you are "disembarking" in Honolulu.  As I said, CBP does not care how the cruise is marketed, nor how it is sold, they only care where the passenger originally embarked the ship, and where the passenger "permanently" disembarks the ship.

[blackshirt]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Only if you ignore leg 1.  Where they start in Vancouver and end in Hawaii.  Since it is a B2B2B on the same ship without a break it should be considered to be one continuous trip booked from Vancouver to LA.  As such no violation

Ok, that makes sense. If there were some legitimate reason leg 1 should be ignored, leg 2 and 3 together would be a violation, yes? That’s what I was getting at, thanks for explaining reasonably without being rude or insulting.

[cruisestitch]

blackshirt said "The issue here I’m pretty sure is disembarking leg 2 and embarking leg 3 in Vancouver on the same day"

 

No, the OP wouldn't be disembarking in Victoria and embarking in Vancouver on the same day -- as he said he would be overnighting in Victoria.  In essence, celebrity is telling him (and has told others in the predicament of PVSA violations) that ending a cruise a day early, staying in a hotel in Victoria, and then transferring to Vancouver and re-boarding the ship for the next cruise is sufficient to satisfy PVSA.  This is a solution that have proposed in the past for cruisers who wish to embark in Honolulu and disembark in Alaska.  

 

But the whole point is -- he isn't in violation of PVSA at all -- they are ignoring his first cruise.

[waterbug123]

On 8/1/2019 at 7:16 PM, wrk2cruise said:

 

 

On 8/1/2019 at 8:37 PM, gatour said:

Based on the email that the OP provided, I think the red-flag was the second and third legs, which is a violation of the PVSA.  I am not sure how the first leg would impact this if taken in conjunction with the second and third legs.  

 

 

There have been posts in the pasts where someone was just doing B2B, and it violated the PVSA because they consider only where they initially embarked for Cruise 1, and ultimately disembarked for Cruise 2.  B2B2B should be no different, i.e. where they embark for Cruise 1 and where they ultimately disembark for Cruise 3.  I agree that someone the latter 2 cruises got tagged without consideration for the fact that there is a 3rd cruise prior to both, and/or the OP has been dealing with a front line employee who doesn't really understand the law and is simply reading from a memorandum.  It needs to be escalated.

 

On 8/1/2019 at 9:28 PM, gerelmx said:

 

I call X,  and they say the same as my TA, I will call again as many of you recommend. And will insist to my TA

 

The TA is getting paid and should be working harder on this for you.

 

On 8/2/2019 at 12:02 AM, bigbenboys said:

It has been my understanding if the cruise ships were registered in the US their would not be this problem. 

 

Correct.  The PVSA applies to foreign-flagged ships.  But that is almost 100% of cruise ships.  At one time (might still be the case) there was a single US-flagged ship doing Hawaiian itineraries that started in one Hawaiian port and ended in another and that was fine since it was a US-flagged ship.  I think it was either a Princess ship or a Norwegian ship? 

[cruisestitch]

see post 36 where chengkp75 explained this