cvanhorn

Leaving out whether or not trip insurance would/would not pay for a PVSA fine and also leaving out whether or not the cruise lines would charge back a passenger for the fine.....if there was a poll of "reasonable individuals" who cruise, I seriously doubt even half would know whether or not an itinerary was in violation. People such as yourself and others who posted on the previous PVSA string do have knowledge of such things, for a variety of reasons, but I truly suspect that most people who book cruise vacations are not going to be saavy about PVSA regs.

I agree, but they would sure know if they find an extra $300 per person on their SS cards or credit card later.:D

I can see the passenger being responsible for the fine if they "jump ship" in Hawaii or Alaska, but is it really the passengers fault if the Captain decides to "slow down" to give the passengers a more comfortable ride and doesn't have time to stop at the "foreign" port? How about all of NCL's missed stops at Fanning Island back before NCLA, does anyone know if they passed those fines on to the passengers or was our government giving them "waivers" even back then, or did they just eat the fines?

After further research, I see you are correct and I am wrong. I apologize for speaking up before doing enough research.

Has anyone been fined the $300 for a PVSA violation

That is not an individual fine, it is the cruise line that is fined $300 per passenger. The passengers are not fined and the cruise line does not try to collect from the passenger as it was their problem to deviate the itenerary (such as high seas, etc.) Used to happen quite often for NCL in Hawaii having to not go to Fanning Island due to weather and just pay the fine. Also, Alaska cruies sometimes have problems with not being able to make their Canadia stop for PVSA purposes, but not often, usually if they are delayed they still manange an hour in the middle of the night to do the paperwork which satisfies PVSA even if passengers don't get to get off the ship.

Remember Cvanhorn.....if you sell this summary and make a million dollars, I get a cut as royalties....:D

I can't sell it, you wrote it and I said so at the beginning. I did change the Million to Billion. :)

My whole reason was thinking maybe they just auto locked the other over the weekends so they could reivew it on Monday and thinking the initials PVS* were somehow causing it I wanted to start with something without those initials.

oops, you're correct. Oh well it is a good summary for those that don't have time to read through 2,000+ posts.

As the original pvs* thread has been locked and our new thread addressing that has been deleted I am starting this one. :)

Summary originally posted by DAGVBSB & edited by myself:

Here is the whole thing in a nutshell....

1.) The PVSA is the Federal Law (sometimes confused and called the "Jones Act") which prohibits foreign flagged cruise ships from transporting passengers between U.S. ports without a foreign port stop. (hence Seattle roundtrip cruises to Alaska must stop in a Canadian port like Victoria. It is illegal for an all US port cruise by a foreign ship.

2.) C&BP is the Customs and Border Patrol Office of the Department of Homeland Security. They are responsible for enforcement of the PVSA.

3.) Most cruise ships are foreign flagged. In fact, there is only one large American flag cruise ship still in operation... The "Pride of America" (POAm) operated by NCLA (Norweigan Cruise Lines America, a subsidiary of NCL.) There were two other American flagged ships, the Pride of Aloha and Pride of Hawaii, but those have been reflagged international (as the Norweigan Sky & Norweigan Jade) and are doing international sailings for NCL. All three ships had been doing interisland Hawaii only cruises. NCL blames the pulling of the POA and POH on competition from other cruise lines in violation of the PVSA.

4.) The other cruise lines (HAL, Princess, RCCL, Celebrity plus others) do a California to Hawaii cruise. While the NCLA cruises were 7 days, the cruises on the other lines are generally 12-16 days due to a stop in Mexico and the sea crossing to Hawaii. The stop in Mexico, usually at Ensenada, must be made in order to meet the requirements of the PVSA.

5.) Here is where the issue started... some of the other lines were making the stop in Ensenada in the middle of the night for a period of as little as an hour and not allowing passengers to go ashore. It was basically just a stop to meet the PVSA requirements. Yes, it was wrong, but most cruise lines (including NCL) do the same thing on Alaska cruises with the Canadian stops.

6.) NCL has been losing money with NCLA and the Pride ships and placed the blame on the small number of foreign flagged ships sailing to Hawaii. NCL got their government contact, Senator Daniel Innoye (D-Hawaii) to petition the C&BP to strengthen the PVSA to the point where the foreign ships could not compete and would no longer do the Hawaii run, thus leaving NCLA a monopoly in Hawaii.

Some other facts to know: Senator Innoye's late wife was Godmother of the POAm and Senator Innoye himself is Godfather of the Pride of Hawaii/Jade. Sen. Innoye was instrumental in getting NCLA launched and cutting through government red tape and getting NCL exemptions to the PVSA in 2003 in order to start NCL.

7.) Back in November, C&BP issued proposed changes to the PVSA. These included: 1.) the stop in a foreign port must be 48 hours in length

2.) Passengers must be allowed to disembark

3.) Foreign port calls on cruises between US ports must make up 50% of the total port time.

8.) Obviously those rules would make the California to Hawaii run impossible for the cruise lines. What NCL, Innoye and C&BP failed to realize was the wide reaching effects these changes would have on the entire US cruise industry. NCL maintains that these rules were only meant for Hawaii but many believe that under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, (and some early statements by the C&BP), these rules MUST be enforced for all US port cruises. As a result, the Seattle-Alaska roundtrip cruises, the Canada-New England cruises and some Florida-Key West Cruises would all also fall under these rules and be forced to drastically change intineraries.

9.) C&BP had a comment period of 30 days in the month of December. Many people asked them to extend the time for comments and they refused and stated that they would be making a decision very early in 2008.

10.) The comments poured in.... the vast majority against the changes. The comments in favor of the changes came from Senator Innoye, Congressman Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), NCL and the Seafarers Union. Comments against the proposal came from the Governors of California & Hawaii, Senators and Representatives of California, Washington, Alaska, Florida, Maine and Connecticut, Mayors of San Diego, San Francisco and LA the Alaska tourism officials and many Alaska tour operators, Chambers of Commerce in Hawaii, Alaska and New England, travel agencies, port operators in California and Hawaii and almost the entire Hawaiian tourism community. (yes, the Hawaii Congressional delegation is in favor of the proposal while the people of Hawaii are massively against it!)

11.) After the comment period closed, the said that they were going to study the comments and issue a decision within a month. In the meantime, NCL pulled their second ship, POA, out of Hawaii.

12.) The decision was due in early February and we are still here waiting. Stories have leaked that they are looking at making changes to the proposed changes including shortening the port stay and attempting to restrict its implementation to only ports where "large" U.S. flag ship(s) operate (Hawaii).

13.) When will the decision be made?? Who knows. The fact that nearly 6 months have gone by in this debacle speaks volumes. Most on here believe that the C&BP is stuck in the middle... they have promised Innoye and NCL the new regulations to save NCLA but at the same time, they see the economic damage that would occur to so many areas if they go through with it.

14.) Based on reports that we have been linked to through this thread, many layoffs would occur in the Port and tourism industries of the affected areas. NCL claims that the rules are needed to save the 800 American jobs on the POAm, but other estimates put the potential number of people who would lose their jobs in other industries much higher. It is also believed that the cruise industry simply would move the embarkation points for these cruises from California to Mexico for the Hawaii cruises and to Vancouver for the Alaska cruises thus completely circumventing the PVSA. The cruise lines will still do their Hawaii sailings, only it is the California ports who would lose the business.

15.) Apollo Investments bought a $1 billion stake in NCL last August. As part of that agreement, they said that a decision would be made on NCLA within 16 months (end of 2008). NCLA either would be made profitable and continue or they would cease operations and have their assets "liquidated" (word direct from the Apollo/NCL agreement). They even went so far as to say that the POAm would be reflagged into the NCL International fleet.

So there is a chance that NCLA will not exist after 2008 (many of us believe that to be inevitable) but yet these new PVSA regulations could go into effect.

Thanks all, I will be looking forward to another poster. Hope they are different on eachg ship.

We leave tomorrow on the Conquest and have also booked Capt. Marvins with several other CCr's.

Cliff

I didn't get one.........I want a poster!;)

Hop in your time machine and take the 12/03/2005 Carnival Celebration cruise. Be sure and eat in your dining room on the last night. :D

Does Conquest hand out a Carnival poster to each couple in the dining room on the last night like Celebration did? Nice large poster and we had our dining room waiter and assistant sign them. Thanks