Someone who understands the Jones Act...

[islandwoman]

Someone who understands the Jones Act, please explain how the cruise lines might change their itineraries so that they could sail to Alaska from the lower 48 without stopping in Canada.

[Fouremco]

6 minutes ago, islandwoman said:

Someone who understands the Jones Act, please explain how the cruise lines might change their itineraries so that they could sail to Alaska from the lower 48 without stopping in Canada.

The PVSA - not the Jones Act - requires them to visit a foreign country, usually Canada but Mexico would meet the requirement for an Alaskan cruise. Of course, that would entail a much longer cruise, not possible currently with the 7-night restriction of cruise lengths.

[WestLakeGirl]

As Fouremco noted, there’s not enough time with a 7 day restriction.

 

they can’t even do a “drive by” or a “cruise to nowhere” as someone suggested, just sailing past glaciers but not docking anywhere and then returning to Seattle.

[cruisestitch]

Every cruise that leaves and returns from the same US port must visit a foreign port. On the West Coast, your choices are Canada and Mexico.

 

A one-way cruise that starts from US city A and goes to US city B must visit a DISTANT foreign port.  By definition in the PVSA,  There are no distant foreign ports on the west coast.  So you won’t see any one-way cruise that goes from Seattle to Alaska.  
 

Without Canada, there can be no cruise from the lower 48 to Alaska.

[ChucktownSteve]

34 minutes ago, cruisestitch said:

Every cruise that leaves and returns from the same US port must visit a foreign port. On the West Coast, your choices are Canada and Mexico.

 

A one-way cruise that starts from US city A and goes to US city B must visit a DISTANT foreign port.  By definition in the PVSA,  There are no distant foreign ports on the west coast.  So you won’t see any one-way cruise that goes from Seattle to Alaska.  
 

Without Canada, there can be no cruise from the lower 48 to Alaska.

 

Isn't it time for Congress to change that antiquated law?  Oh wait...Congress doing something in the public interest that doesn't pander to their lobbyists or cater to their personal power?  hahahahahaha

Edited February 6, 2021 by ChucktownSteve

[Bruin Steve]

There are only three ways they could cruise Alaska without a Canadian port:

1)  If the US Congress would amend the PVSA...or even suspend it...to allow cruises to and/or from Seattle.

2)  If they were allowed to do cruises of 10 nights or more--out of Los Angeles or San Diego--with a short stop in Ensenada (We've done 3 night cruises Vancouver to LA--so, leave San Diego and it's a very short trip to Ensenada to get in that foreign port, then three at sea days in a row to get to Seattle, then, a six or seven night Alaska visit ending in Seward...then the following cruise in reverse...OR...

3)  Reflag a ship as a US ship..in which case the PVSA does not apply.  NCL did this several years ago for a 7 night Hawaii cruise.  All other Hawaii cruises were longer...and either had to start or stop i Vancouver or Ensenada...or go quite a distance out of their way to stop at Kiribati.  Problem with this solution is that you now have to comply with a lot of US Labor and Tax regulations and the cruise becomes a bit expensive. 

[Host Jazzbeau]

The problem with choice (3) is that the PVSA doesn't allow a simple flag of convenience change.  The ship has to be:  (a) built in the US, (b) flagged in the US, and (c) staffed with majority US crew.

 

NCL was only able to get its (originally 3, now 1) ships covered because the US government was on the hook when the US-based shipyard went under and government had guaranteed the ship under construction.  To save taxpayers from further losses [thank you!] they allowed the ship to be completed in Europe and given an exemption as 'US built.'  And somehow [I'm vague on this point] they got the exemption extended to 3 ships.  But NCL still had to comply with points (b) and (c).  Flagging was easy, but crewing was not.  Ultimately they gave up their exemption on 2 of the ships and constricted their US fleet to just the 1.

 

So if Celebrity, let's say, wanted to get under the PSVA to sail to Alaska – they would have to (a) either build a new ship in a US shipyard [none of which can handle building a cruise ship of that size] or get an exemption for a foreign-built ship [maybe one of their M-class]; (b) give it a US flag [easy enough]; and (c) find US citizens and green-card holders to staff it [ya think?]

 

[I think I got this right, having carefully read @chengkp75's clear explanations in the past.  If I'm wrong, I hope he will see this flag and respond.]

 

Choice (2) is how everybody except NCL POA does Hawaii cruises, but the detour to Ensenada is a lot further if you're headed 'North to Alaska.'

 

Choice (1) is therefore the best hope at this point.  @chengkp75 has correctly indicated in the past that this would in fact be opening a hornet's nest of problems and that there has been no support for it either in Congress or from the cruise industry – but this time seems different and maybe there would be support for a time-limited suspension of the law, although even Robert Venables, executive director of the Southeast Conference in Juneau admitted that: "A temporary amendment to the U.S. Passenger Vessel Services Act this year to allow vessels to sail from Seattle without stopping in a Canadian port is certainly the one suggestion receiving the most attention now," Venables said. "That is still a very high hurdle, and there are likely multiple other scenarios that need to be explored."

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5867/

 

[cruisestitch]

And the problem with Choice (2) as outlined above by Bruin Steve is that a one-way trip between two US ports doesn’t just require a foreign port, it requires a DISTANT foreign port. Ensenada is not a distant foreign port according to the PVSA

Edited February 6, 2021 by cruisestitch

[Bruin Steve]

5 minutes ago, cruisestitch said:

And the problem with Choice (2) as outlined above by Bruin Steve is that a one-way trip between two US ports doesn’t just require a foreign port, it requires a DISTANT foreign port. Ensenada is not a distant foreign port according to the PVSA

There are LOTS of cruises that use Ensenada as the foreign port...Look at ANY of the "California Coastal" Itineraries---September 19, 2021 Millennium, for example...

 

AND, it is not really that far out of the way for any cruise leaving out of LA or San Diego...it's less than 75 miles south of San Diego....You can leave Ensenada and be in Seattle in less than 3 days...So, you can easily do a 10 or 11 night cruise, go to Ensenada and still get in the equivalent of a 7 night one-way Alaska itinerary...

[Host Jazzbeau]

I think the point is that you need a distant foreign port for a one-way cruise.  So your planned itinerary would have to be round trip San Diego, with one stop at Ensenada.  How much of Alaska can you include on that 10 or 11 day itinerary?

 

Only the round-trip Seattle cruises get away with a stop in Victoria.  The one-way cruises to 'Anchorage' use Vancouver at the other end to avoid the PSVA altogether.

[cruisestitch]

Yes, Bruin Steve’s suggestion was to start in LA or San Diego, make a stop in Ensenada, then visit Alaska and end in Seward.  To start in California and end in Seward requires a DISTANT foreign port.

 

So that makes a round-trip the only viable option (California-Mexico-Alaska and back to port of origin in California) and that would take a lot longer than seven days.

[Luvcrusn]

In 2006 we sailed on the X Mercury on a 7 night round trip to Alaska via the inside passage, beginning and ending in Seattle. As I recall we made a stop near a Canadian port (we didn't dock which is why I said near) for approximately an hour. No passengers disembarked and to my knowledge neither did any crew. I know it's been a while so my memory may be distorted, but as I recall this stop was to satisfy the PSVA. I'm wondering why this would not be feasible under the current circumstances with Canada's new restrictions since no one would step foot on Canadian soil.

[cruisestitch]

I think the cruise lines were told that this kind of “technical stop” is no longer allowed.  A similar stop, in the middle of the night even, in Ensenada used to be utilized as a way around the PVSA, but can’t be done any more.

[jelayne]

I can’t imagine that changing or amending the PVSA would be high on Congress’s list of priorities.  

[Host Jazzbeau]

4 minutes ago, Luvcrusn said:

In 2006 we sailed on the X Mercury on a 7 night round trip to Alaska via the inside passage, beginning and ending in Seattle. As I recall we made a stop near a Canadian port (we didn't dock which is why I said near) for approximately an hour. No passengers disembarked and to my knowledge neither did any crew. I know it's been a while so my memory may be distorted, but as I recall this stop was to satisfy the PSVA. I'm wondering why this would not be feasible under the current circumstances with Canada's new restrictions since no one would step foot on Canadian soil.

 

Just now, cruisestitch said:

I think the cruise lines were told that this kind of “technical stop” is no longer allowed.  A similar stop, in the middle of the night even, in Ensenada used to be utilized as a way around the PVSA, but can’t be done any more.

 

And even then you had to have the cooperation of the port authorities to sign the paperwork – something that Canada won't do under the circumstances.

[WestLakeGirl]

It morphed from comments about the PowerUpPoints Alaska webinar to Alaska cruising.  It will morph back when there is a new PowerUP offer 

[Charles4515]

14 hours ago, ChucktownSteve said:

 

Isn't it time for Congress to change that antiquated law?  Oh wait...Congress doing something in the public interest that doesn't pander to their lobbyists or cater to their personal power?  hahahahahaha

 

Because you think it is a way to restart cruises you think it is antiquated. There are many who believe that the law is in the public interest. I personally think the law should be modified but that would need to be done very carefully. Changes to the law could open up a pandoras box. Even if there was support in congress now to make changes it would be a long process to write changes  put them into effect.  

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Charles4515

[ChucktownSteve]

1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

 

There are many who believe that the law is in the public interest. I personally think the law should be modified but that would need to be done very carefully.

 

 

Please explain how the law is in the public interest in today's society.

[cruisestitch]

But maybe do so not on this PowerUpPoints thread.  People over on the (So called) Jones Act thread are deep into this discussion.

Edited February 6, 2021 by cruisestitch

[Charles4515]

22 minutes ago, ChucktownSteve said:

 

Please explain how the law is in the public interest in today's society.

 

I won't because I don't think myself that much of the law is in the public interest and because it is off this topic. If you do a search on CC you will see many threads on the topic including one ongoing now  on the Celebrity forum. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Charles4515

[Host Kat]

Howdy all!  

 

The off-topic posts on the Captain’s Club Power Up Points thread regarding PVSA/Jones Act have been split out to their own thread and are now on the Ask a Cruise Question forum. As mentioned  before, there are other existing threads for the topic. This thread has been closed.

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2770424-the-jones-act/

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2746701-could-lifting-the-jones-act-be-a-help-in-this-mess/

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2762370-a-pvsa-question/

 

Host Kat