SeaShark

Gee...after making wise cracks about me citing articles from the Internet, what do you do? Cite an article from the Internet!!

 

The difference is I've the cited official explanatory bulletin issued by the government agency, CBP, responsible for enforcing this law, as well as provided a link to the wording of the official regulation published in the Code of Federal Regulations, while you're citing some lawyer who may or may not really know what he's talking about.

 

By the way, the lawyer's article you've cited dates from 1999, 12 years ago, while the official CBP publication dates from 2010. Which is more likely to be the most up-to-date interpretation of the law?

 

So...I have the official and current explanation...you have something 12 years old that's some guy's opinion...

 

By the way, I can cite at least one item in your article that has changed since it was published in 1999...the fine for violations was $200 then...it's now $300. The point is that even if he was right in 1999, he may not be right in 2011.

No...the wise crack was about your compulsion to tell others how wrong they are...usually over a minor insignificant point.

Now...you can cut, paste, link, and quote to your hearts content....however you miss the one single relevant point: IF this is legal, then simply get the OP booked. I said it before and I'll say it again: The ONLY acceptable proof of legality is the booking. You can state your side, and I can state mine, but it is whether or not the OP sails that matters...nothing else.

This is really a GREAT response .... thanks,

 

we are sitting here reading / checking sources / comparing

.... " interpretations " ...

Earlier it was said that the end point is what NCL will do ....

and then ... we read that in Oct/2011 this 3 legged cruise was

accomplished on NCL ship .

-----

So, try this interpretation and then cuss us off the board ...

We have booked leg 1 first .

We have booked leg 3 a month later --( a separate booking)

We will book leg 2 some time in future

 

OK --- 3 sepaerate cruises. 3 separate bookings.

 

We embark Seattle > debark Vancouver

We have courage drink, + return and embark Vancouver>debark LA

We have 2 courage drinks, + return and embark LA>debark Miami

 

Have 3 cruises contracted with three separate bookings.

Embark and disembark at end of a cruise.

Repeat 2 more times.

 

Your honor, surely --- THIS is legal!?

 

P.S. Our understanding is the fine is now $ 300.00 pp.

 

WHY DOES ___ A NCL REP __NOT___JUMP IN HERE ???

 

again , thank you all, ____ :) Seamo :)

Your example reminds me of people who try to get around the IRS's $10000 cash limitations by breaking it up into smaller transactions...it is still a violation.

I'm really surprised that no TA has stepped up to book this...it seems crazy that they would bypass such a booking. Certainly, if this is legal, somebody wants this business.

? all I pointed out was they left out Central america from the listing of local/nearby ports.

 

I do think that they are wrong. What matters is where they permanently get off not where they stop as long as they get back on and the other requirements are met.

 

and I really wish before you say I am wrong that you read with some open mind about what I write...

 

and oh by the way I already got a response from the government and they referred me to another site

Funny...I don't recall stating that you were wrong. Perhaps you could quote the post where I made that claim?

I am a lawyer at least one part of the site you cite too is wrong...

 

"

 

• any port in Canada
  
• any port in Mexico
  
• Bermuda
  
• any port in the Caribbean (except those in the Netherlands Antilles, such as Aruba and Curaçao)
  

A "distant foreign port" means any other port, except a U.S. port."

 

 

they left off Central America which is also a nearby foreign port...

the rule is any port in North America(except for the US) is a local/nearby foreign port-including all the Caribbean except the ABC islands. There are special rules for the US insular possessions there as well(PR and the VI's)

I don't see how your interpretation of the author's definition of a distant foreign port is applicable. Nobody is denying that the 3rd leg has a distant foreign port. The problem is that there is disembarkation permitted BEFORE the visit to the distant foreign port.

The author lists his email in the article...perhaps your two legal minds could come to an agreement on how the law applies to THIS situation. I don't see why the author with disagree as long as you are presenting indisputable facts.

The point is the op is NOT permanently disembarking in any port before Miami that is after the distant foreign port. The above supports this cruise as being legal. No they can not get on in Seattle and off in LA permanently.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reread it...it says where permanent disembarkation is ALLOWED. It does not state where the permanent disembarkation TAKES PLACE. The mere fact that disembarkation of ANY passenger is ALLOWED in LA makes this b2b2b illegal.

Read this: http://www.sealetter.com/Oct-99/alancol.html for an Attorney's interpretation of the law.

The applicable point is that the following IS permitted: "A cruise between US ports where permanent disembarkation IS allowed at a US port along the way, but only if the ship visits a distant foreign port and any permanent disembarkation takes place at a subsequent US port "

The disembarkation is allowed if that port comes AFTER the distant foreign port. In the b2b2b that the OP wishes to take, disembarkation is allowed at LA which occurs BEFORE the distant foreign port.

FYI- I emailed the government and asked them:

 

 

I have a question about what is allowed or not allowed under the PVSA which is administered by CBP...can you ask the counsels office who is responsible for this to answer this specific question for a non-US flagged vessel

 

If I get on a cruise in Seattle and stay on for three segments(Seattle to Vancouver Vancouver to LA and LA to Miami-with a stop at a distant foreign port) to Miami-with a stop at a distant foreign port in South America-Is this permitted for a passenger(I know its ok for a crew member).

 

lets see what they say....

You should have been more clear in your email. It should have been plainly pointed out that you were talking about booking three distinct cruise itineraries as a b2b2b and were wondering if by COMBINING these cruises you could circumvent the PVSA rules. The person at the other end may not clearly understand what you mean in your email by "segment".

Bottom line...There are TONS of TAs who read and post on these boards...if this is as legal as some people insist it is, then why doesn't someone step up and BOOK this for the OP? Hard to believe in this economy that a TA would pass on a booking like this. Hello? Anyone?

We can all sit here and debate this until the cows come home, but as they say "the proof is in the pudding". I'll believe it is legal when somebody can book it.

Actually, all you have to do is look at the current NCL Sales PAL...the restriction against booking these 3 cruises as a b2b2b is specifically spelled out. ANY travel agent can see and verify this information.

The law is clear on what it allows. You cannot simply use b2b bookings as a way to circumvent the law.

According to the law:

--A cruise line cannot offer a NY to Miami cruise...even with a stop in Nassau on the way.

--A cruise line CAN offer a NY to Nassau cruise.

--A cruise line CAN offer a Nassau to Miami cruise.

However...you can't book the NY-Nassau as a b2b with the Nassau-Miami to avoid creating a violation. If you could, the cruise lines would be doing it.

To see how this example applies to the OP, substitute Seattle for NY, Vancouver for Nassau, and LA for Miami....the violation occurs BEFORE the leg (LA-Miami) that visits the distant foreign port.

The problem here is NCL is not listing or selling a cruise that goes from OP's beginning and ending. They are selling three separate cruises. If you could buy one ticket for the whole trip, it would be golden, but you can't. NCL is correct on this one. You want to buy three trips and use the fact that one leg calls on a distant port. Can't do it. Sorry.

Regardless of what any of us say here, if they won't sell you a ticket, it's a moot point.

You are absolutely correct...this is what I was saying to the OP earlier.

It isn't where the OP is planning on getting off...it is where the OP has the "option" of getting off. (Of course, a passenger could disembark "early", but booking has to be based on the planned embark/debark points). The issue with booking the three segments and calling them one cruise, is that the OP could, after sailing segments 1 and 2, decide to cancel segment 3 and disembark in LA. The decision to then cancel cruise number 3 makes the already taken cruises a violation...by disallowing the booking, NCL avoids this potential situation.

Sorry, but I disagree.

 

First, the NY to NY cruise is not a violation because it is a closed loop cruise, and the law only requires closed loop cruises stop at nearby foreign port (in this case in the Bahamas). The cruise line actually can't prevent a passenger from disembarking in Port Canaveral. If someone were to disembark in Port Canaveral, that passenger would be in violation of the PVSA and subject to a fine. The "embark/disembark port" vs "port stop" issue you mention is a red herring...the law makes no such reference or distinction. The only relevant facts are where the passenger embarks and disembarks, and whether the ship has made a call at a distant foreign port or a nearby foreign port. If the ship has called at a distant foreign port then passengers may legally disembark at a US port other than their port of embarkation. If a ship has only called at a nearby foreign port, passengers may only legally disembark at their port of embarkation.

 

The NCL rep does not understand the law.

 

I suggest you read the following from CBP, which is the government agency responsible for administering the Passenger Vessel Services Act:

 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/pvsa_icp.ctt/pvsa_icp.pdf

 

In particular, please take careful note of the following on the bottom of page 13, especially the words about proceeding with the vessel to a distant foreign port:

 

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).

 

Alternatively, you may wish to read the exact text of the federal regulation here:

 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/19cfr4.80a.pdf , paying particular attention to this, noting that the law speaks to where a passenger embarks and disembarks :

 

 

(4) Embark means a passenger boarding a vessel for the duration of a specific voyage and disembark means a passenger leaving a vessel at the conclusion of a specific voyage. The terms embark and disembark are not applicable to a passenger going ashore temporarily at a coastwise port who reboards the vessel and departs with it on sailing from the port.

So...you disagree. :eek:

Not surprising as this is your position with the vast majority of what anyone posts...nothing is "quite right" until you put your spin on it.

Well, spin away because you are not correct here. These three cruises cannot be taken together despite your interpretations of what you cut & paste from the web. These cruises are listed in the NCL Sales PAL's B2B Restrictions list specificially because a passenger would be in violation by booking them. This happens quite often with the Pacific Coastal itineraries.

Bottom line...the ONLY way you are going to convince me, the OP, or anyone else is to actually book this cruise. If your sooooooooo confident in your position, then call NCL and convince them of your logic.

I'm sure the OP would be grateful....and I'd be first in line to eat crow.

Now we are REALLY scared.

 

Lived in Key West for 25 years and used to take

our sailboat out in front of 'White St. Pier' for

4th of July ... as the sun is just under the Horizon,

we jump off the stern for a refresh ... only the face masks

in hand ........... two minutes into that swim ... I urgently

encourage a retreat to the ladder .... Bull Shark ... I still

feel the tightening off my Transversus perinæi superficialis!

 

And until now ... actually experiencing this again ..

tee hee ...

 

o.k. we sit back , re think, re calculate ... and re late

to ... maybe a hole bitten in the middle of our B2B2B.

 

Ooooh ... that hurts.

 

thanks , :0 Seamo :)

Not a problem...I hope that you find a good solution.

Sorry that in this case you can only do Cruise 1 and Cruise 3.

The shame is that you could do what you have booked OR you could do Cruise 2 and Cruise 3. It is just trying to do either Cruise 1 and Cruise 2 OR Cruises 1, 2, and 3 that are going to cause you issues.

The alternatives would probably be a cruise from Vancouver to LA on another ship OR a flight between the two.

Best of luck in whatever you choose to do!

The issue that you have here is with the classification of the ports...which I think was missed in your previous thread.

For example...NCL offers a Florida/Bahamas itinerary out of NY. It goes from New York to New York, with stops in Port Canaveral, and Nassau. It is NOT a violation because Port Canaveral is a port visit stop, and not an embark/debark stop (and it matter not if you in particular embark/debark there, it is an embark/debark port if ANYONE can embark/debark there).

In your example of three cruises together: Seattle, Vancouver, LA, and Miami are all embark/debark ports (again...doesn't matter if YOU don't get off in LA...as long as some people can, then it is an embark/debark port). The three legs together is a violation since you will have THREE United States embark/debark ports and you will be visiting two of them without a distant foreign port in between.

Let me add:

If this was all just a B2B consisting of 1) Seattle to Vancouver followed by 2) Vancouver to Miami (with a port visit to LA - No embarking/debarking guests) it would not be a violation and you would be good to go. It is the fact that they are letting people on/off in LA that is causing an issue with booking all three segments.

Hello all,

 

Just off the phone with "Carol" , a rep for NCL.

We asked: "Have booked on the same NCL ship (Jewel) :

.... .... 1.) Seattle to Vancouver and 3.) LA to Miami

and now want to ADD part 2.) Vancouver to LA ...... thus making a

B2B2B , 3 legged embark Seattle, Washington to final debark of Miami with a 'foreign distant port stop' ... in Cartenga, Columbia."

 

Carol said ... NO ... we persist ... No .. we quote the info given here .....A MILLION TIMES ..... NO. "

She goes to a higher authority ... NO!

 

She says: " By having the second part added ... Vancouver to LA ..

""""REGARDLESS"""" of the addition of LA to Miami ---- Which has the distant foreign port in Columbia .... ........ NO.

 

She says (this is NCL REP who has consulted for 5 minutes with

Superiors in booking and customs ) NO.

" In fact, if you have the part one and the part three booked , O.K ____ --- ____ BUT as soon as you try to add part two

Vancouver to LA ______ your are now in violation. NO!!!

 

She says we could change ships for Vancouver to LA but otherwise NO. -- she added ... " when (if) the booking comes up in NCL computers, ... THEY WILL BE SCRUBBED -- denied !!!"

 

O.K. Folks Helping here were ready to jump off the dock at the repetition of this ... subject. our apologies ... all around but HELP!

 

Where do we go from here????

Our T.A. says it is O.K.

Many posters ... here ... said ... " O.K." The Columbia does the trick!

 

Have the "Official downloads" provided by Cruisecritic members on this REPEAT topic --- in previous attempts for a .." can live with it " conclusion.

Quoted these to the NCL Rep ... "does not matter .. if you get on in Seattle and continue to LA you are NOW in violation and it matters not what the NEXT leg is or does or where it goes ... NO".

 

Forgive us this next bit : HELP HELP HELP HELP SOT SOT SOT

( Save our Trip ) ... and what the Hell ... SOS !!!!

 

["Blessed our those who seek the truth .... more Blessed are those whose "help" ... may give the Truth " .... seamo 11-3 :)

 

Thanks Cruise Critic and members,

 

just wanting to ... :) Seamo :)

Sorry to hear of your disappointment, but the NCL rep (why exactly is her name in quotes?) is correct...you cannot follow Seattle to Vancouver with a Vancouver to LA. Without a stop in a DISTANT foreign port, this is a violation and US law prohibits it.

No amount of pleading, arguing, discussing, "the people on Cruise Critic said...", etc is going to change that. Very sorry, but you can't do all three...in a row.

Great Topic! :D

I've seen just about everything used at a M & G...from a "Hello, My Name is _____" sticker and a Sharpie to a fully laminated nametag that also served as a cruise souvenier.

I really liked the nametags we had for the M & G onboard the Epic last year. This is the front of the nametag:

and this was the back of the nametag:

That nametag was probably one of my favorites....

Does anyone know the steps I would go through to transfer a freestyle cruise reward. We have a very good friend who wishes to go on a cruise for his honeymoon and I would like to transfer my cruise reward to him.

 

I know they can be, but just don't know how. Thanks

Phone your PCC, tell him/her what you want to do, thank them, hang up.

The transfer of a cruise reward is a very simple process.

We just did Spirit and stayed at the Marriott convention center. Do not try to walk over with luggage. Take a cab for about 5-8 bucks. On the same corner as the Marriott is a convenience store. Not open early on Sunday morning, so I would buy on Sat night/evening. Your about a five minute walk from Harrahs casino and Bourbon St. Not a bad location.:D

THANK YOU!!! That is excellent info.

I'd ask the hotel if they have a free shuttle. Hampton is really close and they shuttle both directions for free for guests.

Great idea...Thanks Todd. Free shuttle service is a really great amenity to get at a hotel.

I did check with Marriott...they don't have any sort of shuttle service available at this particular location, so I'm back to square one on that.

Hi SeaShark,

 

There's a CVS Pharmacy at 800 Canal St. which is 3 blocks away from your hotel.

 

It looks like you've done your homework as to walk to the port from the Marriott or cabbing it. Although the port is within walking distance (about 2 miles) it is a better option to take a taxi to the port.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Jorge

Thank you very much, but I think you might be thinking of a different Marriott hotel. The one I am staying at is on Convention Center Blvd between Julia St and St Joseph St. literally right across the street from the Convention Center.

Hopefully, some of the locals can help out.

I am sailing next month on the Norwegian Spirit, which leaves from the Erato Street Cruise Terminal.

I already have a room booked at the Marriott Convention Center the night before.

I understand that the hotel is within "walking distance" of the cruise terminal. However, I've looked at a map, and while it does seem walkable, I'm not so sure it is walkable with luggage! It is also difficult to tell if there is a way thru the Convention Center or if you would have to walk all the way around the building....and if you walk around do you go around the bridge end of the building or the Julia Street end of the building?

Or is it just better to get a taxi? (After all, it can't cost that much being that it is so close!)

I would appreciate any advice or insight from anyone familiar with the area or from those who may have stayed at this hotel previously. Any and all opinions are welcome.

Also....wouldn't object to any info that might direct me to a store close by where I could pick up a case of soda.

Thanks in advance!

SeaShark that is exactly what I thought the point was that the poster was making. That basically why should the bar tender receive the "$300" for opening 1 bottle and yet if Guest B bought 100 bottles it would require tons more work but ending up making the same amount in the end. Rather unfair if Guest A & B are dealing with different bar tenders, bar tender #2 - Guest B would have to work much hard for his $300. :confused:

Well, yes. However that is because you are looking at the same side of the coin as the other poster. (You will note that I did NOT say he was wrong, I said he wasn't looking at all sides of the issue).

The other poster's point was to make the service (opening and serving one bottle) and make a judgement based on the difference in gratuity amount (while ignoring the coresponding difference in sales).

I am just pointing out that to do a fair comparison, you can make the sales AND the gratuity paid equal so that you can honestly compare the amount of work asked of the cruise line worker to earn the same money from the same sales. We can easily see that the person ordering the lower cost items is creating a significant amount of extra work for the employee without offering any additional compensation.

What is the difference in service between ordering a bottle of Petrus for $2,000 or a bottle of house wine for $20? You get the same service but the 15% gratuity is 100 times more on the expensive bottle....just food for thought....

Interesting observation, but you are looking at the issue from only one side of the coin...

Let's say that we have two passengers (Guest A and Guest B) each with a wine budget of $2,300 which they will spend in full (to keep it equal).

Guest A orders the Petrus and his bill is $2,000 plus 15% tip of $300 which blows his budget. The cruise worker must open 1 bottle and serve it to receive the $300 gratuity on the $2,000 in sales.

Guest B...on the other hand...orders house wine that runs $20 per bottle. So each bottle costs Guest B $20 plus the 15% tip of $3 for a total of $23. Guest B can order 100 bottles of house wine to consume his wine budget. The cruise worker must open 100 bottles and serve them to receive the $300 gratuity on the $2,000 in sales.

As you can see...the sales are the same, the gratuity received is the same, yet the Guest who orders the lower cost items is causing the cruise worker to have to perform a much greater quantity of work in order to receive the exact same gratuity amount.

All I was saying is that if NCL has to charge it as anything other than tip it is considered income which is taxed. I was just joking.

Yes, I realized that. However, no matter how it is charged, if everyone's net income stays the same, then so does the tax amount since you don't pay taxes on the gross amount.

And FWIW...it is usually easier to ensure that an attempt at humor is seen as such if you follow it with either the ;) smilie or the letters 'jk'.

The cruise line would probably raise it to $1.22 to cover taxes on the income instead of tip.

There would be no increase.

At a price of $1 plus $0.15 tip, NCL keeps $1 and the employee gets $0.15

At a price of $1.15 with no tip, NCL keeps $1 and the employee gets $0.15

The out of pocket for the consumer is the same.

The employee gets the same.

In the end, NCL gets the same as the increase in gross income is offset by the increase in wages paid...therefore the tax liability does not change.

Would you not be happier paying a few dollars more knowing an equitable wage was being paid?

This is a loaded question that presumes facts not in evidence...

What is the definition of an "equitable wage" and who makes that determination?

Is the equitable wage based on the standards of the country where the cruise line operates?

Is the equitable wage based on the standards of the country where the cruise passenger resides?

Is the equitable wage based on the standards of the country where the cruise worker resides?

What is "equitable" could change very much depending on how the questions above are answered.

For example, a person in job "x" may make $25/hr on average in the United States.

The cruise line could hire a person to do job "x" and pay them $7/hr on average.

A United States citizen would think that the person working for the cruise line was grossly underpaid since they base their opinion on US standards.

However....

In the 3rd world country where the cruise line worker resides, the average wage for a person performing job "x" is just $2 per hour (if there is work available).

So, if you lived in the 3rd world country where your profession paid $2 per hour and the cruise line paid $7, would you think taking that job would mean you were grossly underpaid?

We'll meet for a drink on the Sun and gladly pay the 15%:). But I think the price of each drink would actually raise higher than 15%. If you go up to one of the bars and order a drink and you are the only one that orders a drink that shift the bartender gets the 15% gratuity. Without the auto-grat NCL would still have to pay the bartender's wage for working a shift in the bar with no customers, so they would have to increase prices to account for the "dead" times.

 

I know its a very simplified example.

Yeah right...since you're a Navy vet (assumption based on the haze grey comment in your sig), I'll buy your drink! :D