It is interesting to read that American Officials are considering cracking down on cruise lines that sail from a US port then make a short call, for about an hour, at a port outside of the USA, such as Ensenada in Mexico, and then proceed to the Hawaiian Islands.

Sea Trader Inside News states that US officials are saying that cruise ships should stay at least 48 hours in a non US port before proceeding to the islands to protect the US flagged cruise ships of NCL America.

This could also affect non US flagged ships cruising to Alaska from US ports.

As the USA has had few of their own flagged cruise ships in recent years and is the only country imposing this restriction on cruise ships it is time they realized if they want cruise ship tourists to visit their country and islands this restriction should be lifted.

It is not only US residents booked on cruise ships sailing from American ports but also many passengers from other countries !

If NCL America can not provide a service which is superior to the other cruise ships companies visiting the Hawaiian Islands then they should give up and leave it to cruise ship companies that do know how to look after their passengers.

It appears NCL America are in agreement with this suggestion, which with the losses they are making, was to be expected.

Another answer to this restriction would be for the non US flagged cruise ship companies to start their cruises from a non US port and deprive the USA of the income they earn with the ships re-storing and turning round in U S ports.

Neil ( Bob )

[ 12-07-2007: Message edited by: Neil Whitmore ( Bob ) ]

They will have ot be careful, if applied across the board all that will happen is that ships will simply move their homeports to non US ports, Hawaii cruises will depart and arrive back at a Mexican port, Caribbean will move from Florida to the islands (difficult but not impossible) and Seattle's homeporting industry will disappear back to Vancouver.

I do not think the 48hr suggestion is reasonable either, it's going to the other extreme by far. But a normal cruise call should be made. A half-day or full day, no matter, with pax disembarking for excursions if they wish, just as anywhere else the cruise may call.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ):
If NCL America can not provide a service which is superior to the other cruise ships companies visiting the Hawaiian Islands then they should give up and leave it to cruise ship companies that do know how to look after their passengers.

---

Best,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
Can someone explain to me what the point of a ship visiting a non-US port is?

Whats wrong with a foreign flag ship going between 2 US ports with out a stop in another country?

---

It's based upon the Passenger Services Act, dating from the 1880s (many people confuse it with the Jones Act). Basically this restriction was enacted to protect US-flag shipping, back in the days when there were numerous American shipping lines. It states that only US-flag ships can carry pax. between two US ports; if a vessel is foreign-flagged, they must make an intermediate stop at a foreign port of call. That's why cruises must make technical stops in foreign ports.

Of course it's an antiquated law, since the demise of US-flag shipping; also, ships aren't used much for transportation any more, with the development of personal auto transport and the Interstate Highway System. But it's still a law, never-the-less.

That means on world voyages that cruises that start in another country can proceed to the US and go to multiple ports before leaving the US for another country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:
[QB]So the law means that any ship leaving a US port must make a foreign port stop before heading to another port???
QB]

---

It means that any non-US vessel, departing from a US port, must call at a foreign port before returning to a US port, whether it's the origination port or another one. Again, this was set up when people used ships for transportation, say from Boston to Jacksonville, Philadelphia to New Orleans, etc. It was to protect US shipping in the days before Interstates and airlines. People either travelled by train or ship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:
For at least 20 years P&O world voyages have been arriving and San Francisco and sailing directly to Honolulu and not going to a foreign port in between at all. All their ships are UK registered or Bermuda.

---

Passengers who board in San Francisco would have to disembark at some non-US port after Honolulu.

ie: Seattle to Alaska round trip must include at least 1 Canadian port before returning to Seattle, not 1 foriegn port between every US stop as obviously all the ports in Alaska are US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike sa:
For clarity the Jones Act dictates that any non US ship must include one non US port between the US originating port and the US terminating port.

---

I'm not sure about the West Coast but on the East Coast - at least going south - the closest "distant foreign" ports are the ABC islands. That is, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire.

This year I took a nice eight-night QM2 repositioning cruise from Ft. Lauderdale to New York. From Ft. Lauderdale we had two days at sea going down to Bonaire, then up to Grenada, then St. Kitts and then two more sea days up to New York. This itinerary of course came courtesy of US law, which made us go all the way down to Bonaire. I am sure Cunard would not have planned it that way otherwise! The nice thing for me, other than visiting three islands I hadn't been to before (and I have seen most of the Caribbean except Cuba), is that we averaged a good 27.5 knots or so on this cruise. Even between the islands we went at speed, which is very highly unusual on a Caribbean cruise! Lots of fun. For me it was actually a line voyage, taking me home from visiting family in Florida. The ports were just there to satisfy the law and give the ship a nice workout !

Click here to see QM2 in Bonaire due to the Passenger Services Act .

[ 12-09-2007: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

Examples
So to all those cruise lovers out there that want to fly to New York and do a cruise from there down the US East Coast and back to New Yourk. or fly to Los Angeles and cruise along the US West Coast to see the US that way, these laws mean that non US flagged ships cannot create itineraries like this??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:
So basically both these laws mean that no non US flagged ship can start a cruise in the US and cruise to any other US port and then return to the US port it started in??

---

Not exactly, in fact ships do this all the time, say from Miami, with stops in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. But the itinerary cannot be exclusively US ports, thus these cruises also stop in foreign ports en route.

And regarding the P&O ships sailing between San Francisco and Honolulu, that is fine, but they could not embark pax in one port and disembark them in the other port--that is the spirit of the law which prevents 'transportation', or cabotage, between two US ports.

And I also wonder if other nations don't have some similar maritime regulations on the books, as well. For example, in Britain or Australia, could a foreign-flag vessel cruise exclusively to ports within those countries, without calling at a foreign port?

Rich

[ 12-09-2007: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

quote:

---

So much for the US being "The land of the free" looks like to be free you have to follow several rules along the way!

---

There is a political system extant in a few places in the world ,which operates without following "Several rules along the way." It is called "Anarchy." Would you prefer it?

In all countries there are logical rules (e.g. Laws and Statutes) and many illogical and even idiotic rules. Democracies have ways of changing them, if there is anough interest in in the electorate in so doing.

The rules governing passenger shipping are not of great interest to the US electorate. Iraq, the economy, and health care significantly outrank them. When (and if) interest rises, something I do not forsee in the immediate future, they will be changed by due process.

[ 12-09-2007: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:
For at least 20 years P&O world voyages have been arriving and San Francisco and sailing directly to Honolulu and not going to a foreign port in between at all. All their ships are UK registered or Bermuda.

---

But were passengers allowed to disembark in Hawaii if they boarded the ship on the US west coast??

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruisemole:
The Act doesnt physically stop the lines dis/embarking passengers, it just fines them a couple of hundred bucks per passenger.

---

Yes, there is a fine for this, but even paying the fine, a cruise line is limited to how many people they can disembark every year in such a manner. I recall years ago, while working at Carnival, we encountered some problems disembarking people in San Juan (ex.Miami)--they had to fly home for a family emergency, but even paying the fine, the US was not going to let them off the ship until a special exemption was allowed. Apparently too many people had already disembarked early during previous months.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:

(...)And I also wonder if other nations don't have some similar maritime regulations on the books, as well. For example, in Britain or Australia, could a foreign-flag vessel cruise exclusively to ports within those countries, without calling at a foreign port?

Rich

[ 12-09-2007: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

---

Cabotage was a (big?) political problem in the EU a time ago with Greece, which has a lot of intern deep sea passenger trafic, and which tried to protect these lines, ferries from other than Greek companies.
I don't know how it was resolved, and if, effectively, the cabotage practice in Greece/EU has effectively ended.

I thought that with the recent EU/USA Airline Agreement, a certain kind of cabotage with airplanes will now be possible for EUR Air Companies.