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

[sparks1093]

17 minutes ago, K32682 said:

What qualifies as "distant" and what is the definition of "port of call."  Would it possible to have a closed loop that started in Washington, dropped anchor in Vancouver but not disembark passengers and then proceeded to Alaska?    

Found this on a CCL FAQ:

Foreign-flag vessels like Carnival’s vessels may transport passengers between U.S. ports without violating the PVSA if the vessel stops at a distant foreign port and the passenger traveled with the vessel to that distant foreign port.  Distant foreign ports include South American countries, Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, European countries, and Asian countries.

 

And I found this in a CBP document (I did not research the CFR citations):

However, there is no violation of the PVSA when a passenger is on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a “distant foreign port” or ports (whether or not the voyage includes a nearby foreign port or ports) and the passenger disembarks at a coastwise port other than the port of embarkation, provided the passenger has proceeded with the vessel to a “distant foreign port.” See 19 CFR § 4.80a(b)(3). For example, a noncoastwise-qualified vessel that embarks a passenger in Miami, transports him/her to Aruba, then proceeds to Key West where the passenger disembarks does not violate the PVSA. A port in Aruba is a “distant foreign port” pursuant to the CBP regulations. 19 CFR § 4.80a(a)(3).

Edited June 9, 2020 by sparks1093

[Charles4515]

What qualifies as "distant" and what is the definition of "port of call."  Would it possible to have a closed loop that started in Washington, dropped anchor in Vancouver but not disembark passengers and then proceeded to Alaska?    

No. Vancouver is not defined in the PVSA as distant. Also token port stops where passengers don’t disembark are not allowed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sparks1093]

Ok, I looked at the CFR and this is what it says:

(2) Nearby foreign port means any foreign
port in North America, Central
America, the Bermuda Islands, or the
West Indies (including the Bahama Islands,
but not including the Leeward
Islands of the Netherlands Antilles,
i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao). A
port in the U.S. Virgin Islands shall be
treated as a nearby foreign port.
(3) Distant foreign port means any foreign
port that is not a nearby port.

 

Seems pretty straightforward.

[thinfool]

On 6/9/2020 at 1:04 PM, sparks1093 said:

Ok, I looked at the CFR and this is what it says:

(2) Nearby foreign port means any foreign
port in North America, Central
America, the Bermuda Islands, or the
West Indies (including the Bahama Islands,
but not including the Leeward
Islands of the Netherlands Antilles,
i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao). A
port in the U.S. Virgin Islands shall be
treated as a nearby foreign port.
(3) Distant foreign port means any foreign
port that is not a nearby port.

 

Seems pretty straightforward.

Nice post, thanks!....when the Crystal ship did the first Northwest Passage voyage (Anchorage to Boston, I think) a couple of years ago I was curious about the 'distant' port that would satisfy the PVSA.  Turns out it was in Greenland, tho I cannot remember the actual name of the port.

[bob brown]

On 6/10/2020 at 3:47 PM, thinfool said:

Nice post, thanks!....when the Crystal ship did the first Northwest Passage voyage (Anchorage to Boston, I think) a couple of years ago I was curious about the 'distant' port that would satisfy the PVSA.  Turns out it was in Greenland, tho I cannot remember the actual name of the port.

It was the Crystal Serenity that did this in 2016, and again in 2017.  The cruises were from Seward to New York.  There were calls at three Greenland ports, making the cruise "legal".

[bob brown]

On 6/9/2020 at 9:57 AM, Charles4515 said:

 

No. Vancouver is not defined in the PVSA as distant. Also token port stops where passengers don’t disembark are not allowed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I am not so sure about that...

IIRC, When some ships do a closed loop between San Diego and Hawaii, they do a "technical stop" at Ensenada one way, and just anchor there for a few hours, with no one disembarking.  

On the other hand, if they are doing say a repo cruise, from Hawaii to San Diego, they must disembark all passengers at Ensenada, and 'bus them' up to San Diego.

[Shmoo here]

15 minutes ago, bob brown said:

IIRC, When some ships do a closed loop between San Diego and Hawaii, they do a "technical stop" at Ensenada one way, and just anchor there for a few hours, with no one disembarking.  

As noted earlier, such stops are no longer allowed.  To make the stop legal, passengers must have the opportunity to disembark now.  Yes, the stop is "just a few hours" but, passengers can get off, if they wish.

[njhorseman]

15 minutes ago, bob brown said:

I am not so sure about that...

IIRC, When some ships do a closed loop between San Diego and Hawaii, they do a "technical stop" at Ensenada one way, and just anchor there for a few hours, with no one disembarking.  

On the other hand, if they are doing say a repo cruise, from Hawaii to San Diego, they must disembark all passengers at Ensenada, and 'bus them' up to San Diego.

Bob:

That  "technical stop" at Ensenada was ruled unacceptable years ago. Passengers must now be allowed to disembark for the stop to satisfy the PVSA foreign port call requirement.

I hope you and Betsy are doing well.

[Joebucks]

At first, I thought this was a silly question that COVID might change some of these non-related regulations. However, seeing some of the stuff that has gone down from this, I change my view a bit. My state always had two alcohol regulations that they wouldn't budge from. No open containers outside and bars closed at 2 AM. Those two just changed solely from influence behind this. I'm sure it was a way to create some business for the struggling restaurants without having to give them aid. Just one example of what I've seen.

 

I doubt this this is the first thing on anyone's list in congress to change. However, if the struggling cruise lines came to them with concessions that could benefit both parties in exchange for rethinking some old laws, I don't think it is that far fetched anymore.

[SRF]

11 hours ago, Joebucks said:

At first, I thought this was a silly question that COVID might change some of these non-related regulations. However, seeing some of the stuff that has gone down from this, I change my view a bit. My state always had two alcohol regulations that they wouldn't budge from. No open containers outside and bars closed at 2 AM. Those two just changed solely from influence behind this. I'm sure it was a way to create some business for the struggling restaurants without having to give them aid. Just one example of what I've seen.

 

I doubt this this is the first thing on anyone's list in congress to change. However, if the struggling cruise lines came to them with concessions that could benefit both parties in exchange for rethinking some old laws, I don't think it is that far fetched anymore.

 

Just what benefit to the cruise lines?

 

PVSA only stops them from taking passengers from one port to another.  That is annoying for anyone who drives, as they have to fly back to where they left, then get to their car.  Or, people flying in have to have an "open jaws" reservation, which can cost more.

 

 

[sparks1093]

21 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Just what benefit to the cruise lines?

 

PVSA only stops them from taking passengers from one port to another.  That is annoying for anyone who drives, as they have to fly back to where they left, then get to their car.  Or, people flying in have to have an "open jaws" reservation, which can cost more.

 

 

I think what is being proposed is sailing from one US city to another and returning to the port of embarkation, with no call on a nearby foreign port. I'm not sure because we've covered an awful lot of ground in this thread. As for that particular potential itinerary I'm not sure it would help much at all.

[bob brown]

11 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I think what is being proposed is sailing from one US city to another and returning to the port of embarkation, with no call on a nearby foreign port. I'm not sure because we've covered an awful lot of ground in this thread. As for that particular potential itinerary I'm not sure it would help much at all.

It would help in some cases...If a closed loop,  without calling at a near foreign port were allowed, even if Canada remained closed to cruises, they could operate cruises round trip from Seattle to Alaskan ports (provided those locations were 'open'.

The same with New England cruises that would be able to operate without going into Canada.   Also  round trips from the west coast to Hawaii wouldn't have to stop in Ensenada.  And for that matter, perhaps even short "cruises to nowhere", would be legal again, although that particular itinerary was stopped due to CBP rules, IIRC...

 

[ldubs]

53 minutes ago, bob brown said:

It would help in some cases...If a closed loop,  without calling at a near foreign port were allowed, even if Canada remained closed to cruises, they could operate cruises round trip from Seattle to Alaskan ports (provided those locations were 'open'.

The same with New England cruises that would be able to operate without going into Canada.   Also  round trips from the west coast to Hawaii wouldn't have to stop in Ensenada.  And for that matter, perhaps even short "cruises to nowhere", would be legal again, although that particular itinerary was stopped due to CBP rules, IIRC...

 

 

I agree there is that potential benefit.  They can do that now if they adhere to American laws regarding staffing and pay.   I think I said this early on during this thread but I'm still hesitant to change our wage/labor laws to accommodate cruises.   

Edited June 20, 2020 by ldubs

[sparks1093]

7 hours ago, bob brown said:

It would help in some cases...If a closed loop,  without calling at a near foreign port were allowed, even if Canada remained closed to cruises, they could operate cruises round trip from Seattle to Alaskan ports (provided those locations were 'open'.

The same with New England cruises that would be able to operate without going into Canada.   Also  round trips from the west coast to Hawaii wouldn't have to stop in Ensenada.  And for that matter, perhaps even short "cruises to nowhere", would be legal again, although that particular itinerary was stopped due to CBP rules, IIRC...

 

I am not sure that the market is really there for it to help substantially because if it were the cruise lines themselves would be asking for the change. We wouldn't be all that interested in a purely US itinerary, unless perhaps it was the only game in town. As for cruises to nowhere it's not so much CBP rules, it's the way that visa laws are interpreted. As they are interpreted now the crew would need visas that allow them to actually work in the US in order to do a cruise to nowhere. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by sparks1093

[JRG]

4 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I am not sure that the market is really there for it to help substantially because if it were the cruise lines themselves would be asking for the change. We wouldn't be all that interested in a purely US itinerary, unless perhaps it was the only game in town.

 

It is a fair question and here is a fair answer.

 

We are the market and we are here.  We are a drive-to port prospect.   I would love to do a San Diego to Alaska  and not have to stop in Vancouver and instead visit family in Seattle, maybe eat at my favorite Thai restaurant on Lake Union.

 

Don't get me wrong,  I love the quaintness of Vancouver ,  but I don't need to see it every time I want to go to Alaska.

 

Here is the great inequity of the PVSA as it relates to west coast cruising.   For every cruise that an American takes in Alaska,  they have to stop in Vancouver,  and that means 1 day of every single travel trip,  and hundreds if not thousands of dollars spend in Vancouver only to satisfy the PVSA.   We waste vacation time and vacation dollars because of the PVSA.   Seattle is losing out on this potential revenue stream.   

 

In other words, Vancouver is drinking our milkshake.   100% of it and they have been since cruising began and it will remain that way until the PVSA exempts or excludes this very small segment of the industry.     I don't mind sharing some of our milkshake,  but please,  not 100%.   Lets keep some of that money for the Seattle port district terminal and open up some new cruising options.     Not having to stop in Vancouver would open up sailings to Alaska from San Diego, LA, San Francisco and Seattle.

 

The same argument for wasting a day holds for having to stop in Ensenada,  you are wasting 1 day of a cruisers voyage needlessly.    Similar inequities trap East coast and Gulf cruisers who are also lucky enough to live within driving distant of a port.

 

Cruisers need to step up and vote with their feet to kick down the barriers to market that the PVSA imposes.   

 

"The sky will not come falling down if cruiselines are allowed to sail US port to US port"

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

26 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

In other words, Vancouver is drinking our milkshake.   100% of it and they have been since cruising began and it will remain that way until the PVSA exempts or excludes this very small segment of the industry.     I don't mind sharing some of our milkshake,  but please,  not 100%.   Lets keep some of that money for the Seattle port district terminal and open up some new cruising options.     Not having to stop in Vancouver would open up sailings to Alaska from San Diego, LA, San Francisco and Seattle.

100% ? How does one port of call out of the many ports of call, all of the rest of which are in Alaska account for 100%? 

And there are already many cruises from Seattle and San Francisco to Alaska. In 2021  Princess and  Carnival have a total of more than 25 cruises to Alaska scheduled from San Francisco. Every year from Seattle there are more cruises than you can count by numerous cruise lines from Seattle to Alaska.  Nothing's preventing cruises from LA and San Diego too other than geography. Their location further south makes it impractical to run all the way north to Alaska so the vast majority of cruises from there head south to Mexico.

[Charles4515]

 

 
Cruisers need to step up and vote with their feet to kick down the barriers to market that the PVSA imposes.   
 

I can’t see the above happening. Take me for example. I think the PVSA should be modified. I am not going to vote with my feet for changes. There are much more important issues than the PVSA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bob brown]

A minor point, but most of those round trip cruises call at Victoria, rather than Vancouver.   The one way Gulf of Alaska cruises originate or terminate in Vancouver.

[JRG]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

And there are already many cruises from Seattle and San Francisco to Alaska

 

And they probably have to stop in Vancouver, or Victoria, or Valhalla,  it doesn't matter they have to make a redundant stop so you are not bringing anything to the table here.

 

Prove to me that there is a cruiseline that sails from San Diego to Seattle (along the coast) without stopping in Vancouver, Victoria or Valhalla.  

 

Or prove to me there is a cruiseline that sales from Seattle to Los Angeles (along the coast) that does not make a foreign stop.     Feel welcome to substitute any  other west coast US port.

 

 If you can prove this then I will be the first to fall on the sword.

 

Otherwise my point remains,    somebody is drinking 100% of our milkshake here.   

 

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by JRG

[JRG]

1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

I can’t see the above happening. Take me for example. I think the PVSA should be modified. I am not going to vote with my feet for changes. There are much more important issues than the PVSA.

 

You re probably right about this.   It would have to be a top down type of thing.  

 

I also never vote with my feet as I was speaking metaphorically

 

 

 

 

[thinfool]

More success....

IMO, it would have more likelihood of success if everyone who wanted to change things (I don't) would work on the CBP.

Why?  Their regulations designate the 'distant' foreign ports that satisfy the PVSA.

If they were to modify their regulations such that Vancouver, Victoria, or wherever were designated as 'distant' foreign ports, much of this discussion would be moot and sailings discussed here would satisfy the PVSA with no changes.

[thinfool]

11 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

And they probably have to stop in Vancouver, or Victoria, or Valhalla,  it doesn't matter they have to make a redundant stop so you are not bringing anything to the table here.

 

Prove to me that there is a cruiseline that sails from San Diego to Seattle (along the coast) without stopping in Vancouver, Victoria or Valhalla.  

 

Or prove to me there is a cruiseline that sales from Seattle to Los Angeles (along the coast) that does not make a foreign stop.

 

 If you can prove this then I will be the first to fall on the sword.

 

Otherwise my point remains,    somebody is drinking 100% of our milkshake here.   

 

 

 

 

There is no law or regulation that prevents you or anyone with the $$ from operating a cruise line from San Diego to Alaska to Seattle, no foreign stops, at all.

 

The fact that no one does tells a huge story about the viability of modifying the PVSA.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by thinfool

[njhorseman]

8 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

And they probably have to stop in Vancouver, or Victoria, or Valhalla,  it doesn't matter they have to make a redundant stop so you are not bringing anything to the table here.

 

Prove to me that there is a cruiseline that sails from San Diego to Seattle (along the coast) without stopping in Vancouver, Victoria or Valhalla.  

 

Or prove to me there is a cruiseline that sales from Seattle to Los Angeles (along the coast) that does not make a foreign stop.     Feel welcome to substitute any  other west coast US port.

 

 If you can prove this then I will be the first to fall on the sword.

 

Otherwise my point remains,    somebody is drinking 100% of our milkshake here.   

 

 

 

 

Of course they have to make a foreign port call. What I'm objecting to is your incomprehensible comment "drinking 100% of our milkshake." 

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, JRG said:

 

For every cruise that an American takes in Alaska,  they have to stop in Vancouver,  and that means 1 day of every single travel trip,  and hundreds if not thousands of dollars spend in Vancouver only to satisfy the PVSA.    

 

 

This is not a true statement.  There are numerous cruises that embark in Vancouver, therefore negating your claim that 1 day of the itinerary must be spent in a foreign port on the itinerary, or as you put it, a "redundant stop."  

 

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

And they probably have to stop in Vancouver, or Victoria, or Valhalla,  it doesn't matter they have to make a redundant stop so you are not bringing anything to the table here.

 

Prove to me that there is a cruiseline that sails from San Diego to Seattle (along the coast) without stopping in Vancouver, Victoria or Valhalla.  

 

Or prove to me there is a cruiseline that sales from Seattle to Los Angeles (along the coast) that does not make a foreign stop.     Feel welcome to substitute any  other west coast US port.

 

 If you can prove this then I will be the first to fall on the sword.

 

 

 

Here you go.

 

https://www.americancruiselines.com/