Jones Act ??

[Beachin2]

1 hour ago, nelblu said:

I could never understand why it's there for cruising.  In this day and age, what is it protecting?

PVSA also applies to air travel, not just ships, so it's a bigger issue.

[time4u2go]

1 hour ago, nelblu said:

I could never understand why it's there for cruising.  In this day and age, what is it protecting?

It's protecting American companies that provide transportation between American cities.

[Ourusualbeach]

31 minutes ago, nelblu said:

In this day & age, we have a global economy.  Many facets of American industry is owned by Foreign entities, in whole of via shareholders.  What the impact of the need to stop at a foreign port between 2 American ports is what drives me crazy.

No real differnce than the protectionism over flights

[Fouremco]

12 hours ago, Ourusualbeach said:

But there is a stop in Hawaii in between.  If they did not board in Sydney but instead boarded in Hawaii and sailed Hawaii to Vancouver and then  Vancouver to Seattle that cruise would be in violation of the pvsa as it would be seen as a cruise from Hawaii to Seattle.  The stop in Vancouver is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in determining if a cruise is PVSA compliant is the initial embarkation port and the final debarkation port 

Well, now you are changing the parameters of the discussion, as the OP didn't embark in Hawaii. That's a very different set of circumstances and would indeed be a violation of the PVSA.

[wdwkings]

13 hours ago, lovetocruise/diamond said:

We go from Hawaii to Vancouver,BC then from BC to Alaska ending in Seattle 

 

13 hours ago, Ourusualbeach said:

Starting in Sydney you can stay on and end whenever you like at whatever port.  The PVSA only applies to cruises starting from a US port. 

 

13 hours ago, Ourusualbeach said:

Pvsa only applies to cruises where your original embarkation is a US port.

The OP last commented 13 hour ago and there is some clarification that might help.  In the initial post it was stated that the start point was Sydney, but mentioned stops, in Hawaii and Vancouver among the details.  Assuming that the itinerary is boarding a ship in Sydney, and disembarking that same ship in Seattle, there is no issue, even with stops in Hawaii, or Alaska. 

 

Concerns do develop if there are any ship changes, "layovers" or such.  If the stop in Hawaii was actually disembarking and staying for any amount of time (changing ships on the same day even), then the embarkation is now Hawaii and a disembarkation is Seattle and that is a violation.  Another area of concern would be any change of ship or stay in Alaska, since Hawaii to Alaska or Alaska to Seattle would not be allowed. 

 

Conversely, a change of ship or stay in Vancouver would be allowed as the origination is outside of the US.  It appears that you might be doing some kind of side to side, stay or change in Vancouver (it was mentioned "not boarding in Hawaii") so this should be fine.

 

Since the OP was vague about the full itinerary and someone could be changing ships at some point, stating the PSVA doesn't apply might be an overreaching statement.  It is true that PSVA does not matter in most cases when starting outside of a US port but individual itineraries have to be looked at in detail.  While it seems on the surface that the cruise is fine with a start in Sydney and end in Seattle, the proof is in the details.  

Edited September 25, 2023 by wdwkings

[lovetocruise/diamond]

2 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Well, now you are changing the parameters of the discussion, as the OP didn't embark in Hawaii. That's a very different set of circumstances and would indeed be a violation of the PVSA.

I think that’s what I read a few months ago that someone received an email from RCI 30 days prior to their cruises and were in violation and it was cancelled.  

[Ourusualbeach]

4 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Well, now you are changing the parameters of the discussion, as the OP didn't embark in Hawaii. That's a very different set of circumstances and would indeed be a violation of the PVSA.

The only thing I was pointing out was that Vancouver is irrelevant to the OP's original question and has no bearing on determining whether that cruise was or was not in violation of the PVSA

[Fouremco]

13 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

The only thing I was pointing out was that Vancouver is irrelevant to the OP's original question and has no bearing on determining whether that cruise was or was not in violation of the PVSA

Yes, we both agree that Vancouver is irrelevant with a B2B cruise from Sydney to Vancouver to Seattle. But as there are numerous neophytes that read this board, and as there are members who don't understand the PVSA, I was simply pointing out that not only is the combined cruise not subject to the PVSA, but the two individual cruises are similarly not subject to its provisions. 

[Ret MP]

13 hours ago, Ourusualbeach said:

But there is a stop in Hawaii in between.  If they did not board in Sydney but instead boarded in Hawaii and sailed Hawaii to Vancouver and then  Vancouver to Seattle that cruise would be in violation of the pvsa as it would be seen as a cruise from Hawaii to Seattle.  The stop in Vancouver is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in determining if a cruise is PVSA compliant is the initial embarkation port and the final debarkation port 

And, doesn't it have to be a "round trip"/embark and debark at the same port? 

 

I've never done a B2B but I have witnessed many times the B2B folks have to debark from the first cruise and embark on the 2nd cruise just so they officially debarked and went through whatever the regulations/laws are at the time.  

 

I'm not sure about the cost of registering a cruise ship in the U.S. and its attached regulations/rules/laws.  But, wouldn't it be much easier if cruise lines that operate mostly out of U.S. ports were registered in the U.S. of A?  Then they could open up a whole other type of cruising experience for many folks, embark in NYC, cruise to the Caribbean, a few get off and maybe embark more people in Key West, got to CocoCay, and then the ship continues back to NYC with the people that didn't get off in KW, for example.  Medical emergencies would not be an issue.  

 

But, I'm sure the cost of U.S. registration and the Albatross around the necks of cruise lines because of it would be a big factor.  Not to mention the politician's hands that would have to be greased.

 

Edited in:  Repositioning cruises have a little different way of doing things ("distant Ports").

Edited September 25, 2023 by Ret MP

[Ourusualbeach]

24 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

And, doesn't it have to be a "round trip"/embark and debark at the same port? 

No.  You can do a trip that starts in one US city and ends in a different US city as long as it visits a "distant" foreign port.  Distant being the key word, meaning one of the ABC islands or something further South.  The other exception is a sailing starting or ending in San Juan as there is an exception for San Juan.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Ourusualbeach

[Ourusualbeach]

12 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

I'm not sure about the cost of registering a cruise ship in the U.S. and its attached regulations/rules/laws.  But, wouldn't it be much easier if cruise lines that operate mostly out of U.S. ports were registered in the U.S. of A? 

It is not just registering the ship in the US.  The ship (hull) must be manufactured in the US and then the ship needs to employ Americans.

[Ret MP]

4 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

No.  You can do a trip that starts in one US city and ends in a different US city as long as it visits a "distant" foreign port.  Distant being the key word, meaning one of the ABC islands or something firther South.  The other exception is a sailing starting or ending in San Juan as there is an exception for San uan.

Yep, that's what I edited in before your.  

Edited September 25, 2023 by Ret MP

[ngrund]

10 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

And, doesn't it have to be a "round trip"/embark and debark at the same port? 

 

I've never done a B2B but I have witnessed many times the B2B folks have to debark from the first cruise and embark on the 2nd cruise just so they officially debarked and went through whatever the regulations/laws are at the time.  

 

I'm not sure about the cost of registering a cruise ship in the U.S. and its attached regulations/rules/laws.  But, wouldn't it be much easier if cruise lines that operate mostly out of U.S. ports were registered in the U.S. of A?  Then they could open up a whole other type of cruising experience for many folks, embark in NYC, cruise to the Caribbean, a few get off and maybe embark more people in Key West, got to CocoCay, and then the ship continues back to NYC with the people that didn't get off in KW, for example.  Medical emergencies would not be an issue.  

 

But, I'm sure the cost of U.S. registration and the Albatross around the necks of cruise lines because of it would be a big factor.  Not to mention the politician's hands that would have to be greased.

NCL has one ship that is PVSA compliant and is owned by a US subsidiary.

 

The Pride of America only sails around Hawaii. They have a big problem with staffing as all (or majority of) the crew have to be US citizens.

[Ret MP]

8 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

It is not just registering the ship in the US.  The ship (hull) must be manufactured in the US and then the ship needs to employ Americans.

Of course!  🤬

[Ret MP]

7 minutes ago, ngrund said:

NCL has one ship that is PVSA compliant and is owned by a US subsidiary.

 

The Pride of America only sails around Hawaii. They have a big problem with staffing as all (or majority of) the crew have to be US citizens.

I can only think of a few industries that require U.S. citizenship to be employed and they all have something to do with national security.  The hypocrisy of our government is amazing.  My first two years in the U.S. Army were not as a U.S. Citizen (however, I could not get a security clearance, which is not a career enhancer, until I became a U.S. Citizen).  Don't get me wrong, I believe in hiring U.S. Citizens for jobs in the U.S., but that should be the companies/industries policy, if there is no national security involved, that is.  

[ngrund]

11 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

I can only think of a few industries that require U.S. citizenship to be employed and they all have something to do with national security.  The hypocrisy of our government is amazing.  My first two years in the U.S. Army were not as a U.S. Citizen (however, I could not get a security clearance, which is not a career enhancer, until I became a U.S. Citizen).  Don't get me wrong, I believe in hiring U.S. Citizens for jobs in the U.S., but that should be the companies/industries policy, if there is no national security involved, that is.  

Yep, but this is the law as written, I wish so many such laws would be repealed/updated.

 

These outdated protectionist laws are no longer even fulfilling the intended purpose (if they ever did).

 

NCL couldn't properly staff that ship after the Covid restart simply because US citizens were  not applying. Do a background check,grant a work permit and hire a qualified applicant from wherever.

[twangster]

2 hours ago, ngrund said:

Yep, but this is the law as written, I wish so many such laws would be repealed/updated.

 

These outdated protectionist laws are no longer even fulfilling the intended purpose (if they ever did).

 

NCL couldn't properly staff that ship after the Covid restart simply because US citizens were  not applying. Do a background check,grant a work permit and hire a qualified applicant from wherever.

 

There is a pretty significant safety aspect as well.  

 

Foreign flagged ships are not subject to the same safety and inspection regulations that US flagged ships are.  

 

Think about nearly every commercial passenger vessel from water taxis, duck boats to ferries that operate domestically within the US.  All of those are subject to pretty stringent US safety regulations with mandatory USCG inspections.

 

There are limits to inspections of foreign flagged vessels.  That's not to say there are no regulations or inspections of foreign ships, just that they are not nearly as stringent compared to what takes place for US flagged ships.  Once a foreign ship is involved there are international treaties and conventions that come into play, the US can't apply the same rules compared to what they can craft into regulations for US flagged vessels.  

 

The US commercial passenger vessel industry is really pretty safe.  There are incidents that occur but for the most it is a very safe environment due to the regulations and inspections that US flagged are subject to.  If all those thousands of small and medium commercial vessels were allowed to be foreign flagged there would be significantly higher incidents occurring.   

[crzndeb]

14 minutes ago, twangster said:

There is a pretty significant safety aspect as well. 

Thank you for explaining this so well. Some don’t understand what this law protects, and how it impacts vessels other than just cruise ships. 

[not-enough-cruising]

4 hours ago, ngrund said:

Yep, but this is the law as written, I wish so many such laws would be repealed/updated.

 

These outdated protectionist laws are no longer even fulfilling the intended purpose (if they ever did).

 

NCL couldn't properly staff that ship after the Covid restart simply because US citizens were  not applying. Do a background check,grant a work permit and hire a qualified applicant from wherever.

There is so much about this topic that you obviously do not have a grasp on. 
It is a very important law, that protect innumerable American interests, and the nuances are very far reaching. 

[ngrund]

49 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

There is so much about this topic that you obviously do not have a grasp on. 
It is a very important law, that protect innumerable American interests, and the nuances are very far reaching. 

How does it protect anything, since the cruise lines are observing it.

 

New cruise ships haven't been US built in decades, all work is overseas, with no indication this work will ever come back to the US. If I recall correctly,a while back, Disney wanted to build a compliant ship, no one even submitted a bid on the job.

 

Foreign flag vessels leave from a US Port,then go to a foreign port, or a distant foreign port as required before returning to US. In some cases, like the Alaskan cruises stopping in Victoria, they are just adding a foreign port stop to satisfy the PVSA. They could be adding another Alaskan or Pacific Northwest stop that might bring in tourist dollars to a US port

 

 

[not-enough-cruising]

1 minute ago, ngrund said:

How does it protect anything, since the cruise lines are observing it.

 

New cruise ships haven't been US built in decades, all work is overseas, with no indication this work will ever come back to the US. If I recall correctly,a while back, Disney wanted to build a compliant ship, no one even submitted a bid on the job.

 

Foreign flag vessels leave from a US Port,then go to a foreign port, or a distant foreign port as required before returning to US. In some cases, like the Alaskan cruises stopping in Victoria, they are just adding a foreign port stop to satisfy the PVSA. They could be adding another Alaskan or Pacific Northwest stop that might bring in tourist dollars to a US port

 

 

Again; you don’t fathom the broader scope of the law.  Cruise lines are such a small part

of it. 
Any American making their living in an industry governed by these laws are extremely grateful for them. 

[ngrund]

17 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Again; you don’t fathom the broader scope of the law.  Cruise lines are such a small part

of it. 
Any American making their living in an industry governed by these laws are extremely grateful for them. 

That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't be updated and improved for current times.

[CHOPPERTESTER]

Gotta be careful. Sydney to Seattle as a single itinerary (doubtful) would pass PVSA. B2Bs not so much. We were on a planned B2B on Radiance LA to Vancouver then Radiance Vancouver to (Alaska) to Seattle with no break in Vancouver and were not allowed. Changed it to Radiance LA to Vancouver and S2S Ovation Vancouver to (Alaska) Seattle which did pass PVSA as they were not the same ship.

 

I don't think Hawaii to Vancouver then Vancouver to Seattle on the same ship with no break in between will pass PVSA.

Edited September 25, 2023 by CHOPPERTESTER

[Biker19]

54 minutes ago, CHOPPERTESTER said:

Sydney to Seattle as a single itinerary (doubtful) would pass PVSA. B2Bs not so much.

It doesn't matter if it's a single sailing or broken up into multiple sailings - only the first and last port matters.

[Ourusualbeach]

1 hour ago, CHOPPERTESTER said:

Gotta be careful. Sydney to Seattle as a single itinerary (doubtful) would pass PVSA. B2Bs not so much. We were on a planned B2B on Radiance LA to Vancouver then Radiance Vancouver to (Alaska) to Seattle with no break in Vancouver and were not allowed. Changed it to Radiance LA to Vancouver and S2S Ovation Vancouver to (Alaska) Seattle which did pass PVSA as they were not the same ship.

 

I don't think Hawaii to Vancouver then Vancouver to Seattle on the same ship with no break in between will pass PVSA.

That sailing is perfectly fine.  Starts in Sydney ends in Seattle.  100% no issues, I had 2 clients do this exact itinerary this past May.

 

Yours wasn't as it started in LA and ended in Seattle....started in one US port ended in a different US port and did not visit a distant foreign port.