Have you tried asking NCL themselves? Di

You'd be OK if the second cruise ended in LA: the PSVA requires passengers on foreign-flagged vessels to travel via a foreign port if they start and return to the same US port, but via a DISTANT foreign port if they return to somewhere else in the US. Vancouver is not a distant foreign port.

Someotherguy, what you say doesn't ring true to me. Ports in British Columbia are widely considered "distant" foreign ports for purposes of the Jones Act when Alaska cruises embark in Seattle. Perhaps Vancouver is not considered a "distant" port but Victoria is? This might explain the problem, but this perplexes me since the Norwegian Jewel cruise departing from Vancouver also calls in Victoria before heading to Seattle, and neither cruise is round-trip (i.e., each cruise begins in one country but ends in another, which would normally mean the Jones Act does not apply).

I think the question is whether bombdigiddy was told this by NCL or by someone else. Bit if NCL refuses to sell this ticket, then that's that, whether the Jones Act applies or not. It's a weird law, but the cruise lines know how to interpret it.

First of all, the Jones Act is about freight. What matters here is the PVSA.

Distant ports are those outside North and Central America, Bermuda, Bahamas and all of the Caribbean except the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao). That's why Panama Canal cruises between Florida and California stop in one of the ABC islands, or in Cartagena (i.e., South America).

No Canadian port is distant. Alaska cruises from Seattle are round trip, so any foreign port will do. One way trips between US and Canadian ports are outside the PVSA except when, as here, you join up two trips on the same ship and end up with a trip from one US port to another (different) one, without visiting a distant port.

Regarding the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920). Does the Jones Act itself apply to passengers? The Act itself, no; the principle, yes.

People should stop referring to Jones Act when they should really refers to the Passenger Vessel Act (PSA) of 1886 (46 U.S.C. 289) where it states that “no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, under penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported or landed.” The currently penalty is still $200 which is not a really big deal but $200 back then was a pile of money.

On the OP's comment regarding the back to back. I do not see any reason why it can't be done. LA to Vancovuyer is a 7 day US to foreign port (re-positioning). The Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle is the second leg of the re-positioning for Alaskan inside passage round trips, from foreign port to US port.

There are exceptions on the PSA reagrding ports around southeastern Alaska (46 U.S.C. § 55121(b)) and surrounding area so that might muddy the water some what.

Best course of action would be for the OP to call NCL direct.

If that back to back were permitted, the distant foreign port provision would be gutted: all non-roundtrip itineraries would be sold as segments to and from a near foreign port that passengers could combine into one.

Hence: "It is important to note that a cruise itinerary may be compliant with the PVSA, but a passenger that disembarks at a port other than those designated as part of a compliant itinerary may still cause the vessel/carrier to violate the PVSA depending on where the passenger embarked and disembarked. For example, a passenger that embarks in Seattle, Washington on a round trip itinerary that includes Alaska and disembarks early in Juneau, Alaska will cause the vessel/carrier to violate the PVSA, regardless of the reason for the early departure from the cruise ship." Similarly, by remaining on board in Vancouver a passenger creates a violation out of two compliant itineraries.