Could lifting the ''Jones act'' be a help in this mess.

[dolittle]

I know many on this site (me also) are sick of the Jones Act but getting rid of it fro a year or two  might be a good thing in this mess.You could have cruises doing the east and west coast keeping all that money in the U.S .It would help many states tourist inds. and many would go to places they would have never been . Just look at the map and there are many great stops on both coasts . It would help with those who are fearful of flying in this new world. Ships could start in the east and go south and in Fla. the reverse . Think of N.Y.city as a stop . It would be great on the west coast . I know the down side is the linear nature of the coasts ,it is a long haul but they could leave from many cities along the coasts . What do you think ,would you be interested in these ports . I think many would like to see these parts of the U.S. .What places on the coasts would you like to see.

[clo]

2 minutes ago, dolittle said:

I know many on this site (me also) are sick of the Jones Act but getting rid of it fro a year or two  might be a good thing in this mess.You could have cruises doing the east and west coast keeping all that money in the U.S .It would help many states tourist inds. and many would go to places they would have never been . Just look at the map and there are many great stops on both coasts . It would help with those who are fearful of flying in this new world. Ships could start in the east and go south and in Fla. the reverse . Think of N.Y.city as a stop . It would be great on the west coast . I know the down side is the linear nature of the coasts ,it is a long haul but they could leave from many cities along the coasts . What do you think ,would you be interested in these ports . I think many would like to see these parts of the U.S. .What places on the coasts would you like to see.

Wouldn't they already have to have cruise ports? Or are you thinking tenders? Not a bad idea at all. But I'm ignorant about the Jones Act.

[dolittle]

2 minutes ago, clo said:

Wouldn't they already have to have cruise ports? Or are you thinking tenders? Not a bad idea at all. But I'm ignorant about the Jones Act.

Many have ports, the Jones Act says a ship can not go to two U.S. ports in a row .It is some what more complex . I am sure someone will explain it better . It is a frequent subject on this site.

[Aquahound]

The cabotage law that applies to passenger vessels is the PVSA, not the Jones Act.  Jones Act is cargo. 

 

Either way, it's not going to happen.  It's too much of a Pandora's Box, especially considering the cruise lines themselves are not US incorporated. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Aquahound

[Flatbush Flyer]

16 minutes ago, dolittle said:

 .....the Jones Act says a ship can not go to two U.S. ports in a row ....

No it doesn't. And, if you're talking about passenger carrying ships, it's the PVSA.

Google is your friend....

and so is the US maritime industry....

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Flatbush Flyer

[clo]

12 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

The cabotage law that applies to passenger vessels is the PVSA, not the Jones Act.  Jones Act is cargo. 

 

Either way, it's not going to happen.  It's too much of a Pandora's Box, especially considering the cruise lines themselves are not US incorporated. 

OP is asking if one would be interested in some of these ports. I'm guessing somebody could issue a 'directive' or whatever that allows it with certain restrictions, time limits, etc. I think you avid cruisers would think this is a good idea. Think outside that box 🙂

[njhorseman]

20 minutes ago, dolittle said:

Many have ports, the Jones Act says a ship can not go to two U.S. ports in a row .It is some what more complex . I am sure someone will explain it better . It is a frequent subject on this site.

The PVSA  says nothing of the sort. A foreign flagged cruise ship can do as many US ports in a row as it wants as long as it visits a foreign port at some point in the cruise and returns to its original port. If the itinerary were to end in a different US port than it started, then the cruise would have to call on what is called a distant foreign port.

 

 For example, a ship can start in NY, go to Newport, Boston, Bar Harbor and Halifax (the foreign port) and then return to NY.  I've been on many cruises that have visited multiple US ports in a row.

 

Besides, I don't see what problem your idea is intended to solve. Lots and lots of people, even frequent cruisers like myself, want no part of cruising to anywhere until they're sure it's safe to do so...for example we have no intention of cruising until an effective vaccine for COVID-19 is developed, or until the disease somehow fades away.

Edited April 21, 2020 by njhorseman

[njhorseman]

4 minutes ago, clo said:

OP is asking if one would be interested in some of these ports. I'm guessing somebody could issue a 'directive' or whatever that allows it with certain restrictions, time limits, etc. I think you avid cruisers would think this is a good idea. Think outside that box 🙂

The only legally permissible reason for granting a PVSA exemption is for national security purposes. Cruise vacations certainly aren't a matter of national security.

Edited April 21, 2020 by njhorseman

[clo]

3 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

.for example wew have no intention of cruising until an effective vaccine for COVID-19 is developed, or until the disease somehow fades away.

Ditto.

[clo]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

The legally permissible reason for granting a PVSA exemption is for national security purposes. Cruise vacations certainly aren't a matter of national security.

But I bet somebody has the authority to grant exceptions.

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, clo said:

But I bet somebody has the authority to grant exceptions.

Only for national security reasons, as I said... and it is the Secretary of Homeland Security who grants the waiver.

Edited April 21, 2020 by njhorseman

[clo]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

Only for national security reasons, as I said. 

What about 'the president'? Y'all are a bunch of rule followers 🙂

[navybankerteacher]

4 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

The PVSA  says nothing of the sort. A foreign flagged cruise ship can do as many US ports in a row as it wants as long as it visits a foreign port at some point in the cruise and returns to its original port. If the itinerary were to end in a different US port than it started, then the cruise would have to call on what is called a distant foreign port.

 

 For example, a ship can start in NY, go to Newport, Boston, Bar Harbor and Halifax (the foreign port) and then return to NY.  I've been on many cruises that have visited multiple US ports in a row.

 

Besides, I don't see what problem your idea is intended to solve. Lots and lots of people, even frequent cruisers like myself, want no part of cruising to anywhere until they're sure it's safe to do so...for example wew have no intention of cruising until an effective vaccine for COVID-19 is developed, or until the disease somehow fades away.

 Exactly - it doesn’t matter what the itinerary is — the problem is the contagion involved in the crowding involved in all aspects of cruising:  embarkation, entertainment, dining, debarkation.

[njhorseman]

5 minutes ago, clo said:

What about 'the president'? Y'all are a bunch of rule followers 🙂

In an edit to the post I named the person who can grant the waiver, the Secretary of Homeland Security. Obviously since that is a cabinet position, the secretary reports to POTUS, so presumably POTUS would have to agree.

 

But even given some of the crazy stuff that comes out of Washington how could this even remotely be considered  national security issue? 

 

We are a nation of laws, and this would be a clear violation of law...so yeah, we're "rule followers"...thankfully.

Edited April 21, 2020 by njhorseman

[navybankerteacher]

The real answer is containing contagion - by vaccine, or simple mutation of the virus - it doesn’t matter where ships srart from, or go, or end up, or even the flag they sail under,  if they remain hot spots by their nature.

[Aquahound]

31 minutes ago, clo said:

OP is asking if one would be interested in some of these ports. I'm guessing somebody could issue a 'directive' or whatever that allows it with certain restrictions, time limits, etc. I think you avid cruisers would think this is a good idea. Think outside that box 🙂

 

We are in the midst of a pandemic.  A "directive" will not be issued for a temporary repeal of federal law in order to satisfy the cruising wants of people.  And no, I do not need to think outside the box.  I work for DHS and I am involved with maritime regulation.  Repealing PVSA is not on the table, nor will it be.   

 

And as an avid cruiser, no, I do not think its a good idea to allow for foreign corporations to run their foreign flagged ships between US ports without the requirement to visit a foreign port.  That is a terrible idea. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Aquahound

[Cruzaholic41]

56 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

The only legally permissible reason for granting a PVSA exemption is for national security purposes. Cruise vacations certainly aren't a matter of national security.

That is correct.  However, allowing cruises to restart now would create an emergency, especially since several of those ships sitting offshore have sick crew on board. 

[Mistizoom]

Another issue is that nearly all the crew are not U.S. citizens and do not have proper visa/work permit to work "in" the U.S. That is why cruises to nowhere were stopped a few years ago. https://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/Customs-says-cruises-to-nowhere-were-never-legal

Sent from my LM-G710 using Forums mobile app

[njhorseman]

Just now, Mistizoom said:

Another issue is that nearly all the crew are not U.S. citizens and do not have proper visa/work permit to work "in" the U.S. That is why cruises to nowhere were stopped a few years ago. https://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/Customs-says-cruises-to-nowhere-were-never-legal

Sent from my LM-G710 using Forums mobile app
 

Correct....

Of course the same person who can declare pleasure cruises a matter of national security in order to wave the PVSA can also change this rule...

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Correct....

Of course the same person who can declare pleasure cruises a matter of national security in order to wave the PVSA can also change this rule...

I'll stay on the sidelines for this one, you and Paul are doing just fine.  For the OP, as sick of the "Jones Act" as you are, know that CLIA has stated publicly that their member cruise lines have no intention of seeking a repeal or modification of the PVSA, since they see no appreciable benefit to their bottom line.  In other words, while PVSA cruises are a hot topic on CC, the cruise lines' research departments do not see sufficient demand for these cruises to justify the effort to change the law.  Puerto Rico got an exemption after 10 years of lobbying, and only one cruise line, Carnival, actually started routine one way service from Puerto Rico to the mainland, and this only lasted one or two years before it folded due to lack of demand.

[CruisingAlong4Now]

American Cruise Lines sail the east coast, the west coast, and the Mississippi River.

[njhorseman]

59 minutes ago, CruisingAlong4Now said:

American Cruise Lines sail the east coast, the west coast, and the Mississippi River.

Because they're US-flagged ships, so they can.

[njhorseman]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I'll stay on the sidelines for this one, you and Paul are doing just fine

Which means that Paul and Paul are doing fine. People named Paul tend to be pretty sharp...

[donaldsc]

16 hours ago, Aquahound said:

The cabotage law that applies to passenger vessels is the PVSA, not the Jones Act.  Jones Act is cargo. 

 

Either way, it's not going to happen.  It's too much of a Pandora's Box, especially considering the cruise lines themselves are not US incorporated. 

 

This is a post on the Jones act including why it is called the Jones Act - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp.  You are correct that it has nothing to do w cruise ships.  

 

As you correctly noted, it is the PVSA that applies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886.

 

DON

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, donaldsc said:

 

This is a post on the Jones act including why it is called the Jones Act - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp.  You are correct that it has nothing to do w cruise ships.  

 

As you correctly noted, it is the PVSA that applies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886.

 

DON

 

Quick story....I had a meeting with a Royal Caribbean senior Captain once at RCI HQ and this subject came up.  Funny thing is, he told me that whenever a PVSA violation occurred, a mark was made on the Masters' records indicating Jones Act violation.  He said he actually gets questioned on it when he flies into the US.  I tried to follow it up out of curiosity but I never could get a straight answer out of CBP why that was....or possibly still is. 

 

But regardless, your references are correct.