U.S. Maritime Law question on B2B Seattle>Vancouver>LA.

[Sincity]

Isn't there some kind of outdated U.S. maritime law prohibiting us from taking a B2B from Seattle to Vancouver and then from Vancouver to LA?

 

There are two different coastals this upcoming Sept that we would like to take.

 

TIA! :cool:

[barante]

Call the ship line and ask about it. I bet they'll sell you a cabin.

[RickEk]

Call the ship line and ask about it. I bet they'll sell you a cabin.

 

If the voyage is prohibited by the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act), the cruise line will definitely NOT sell you the cruise. They'd be heavily fined...

[SingerEsq]

Oh boy .... here we go ....

 

There is a law referred to as the PSA or Passenger Service Act. It forbids a foreign carrier from transporting a U.S. citizen for travel between ports of entry in the U.S. without first traveling to a distant foreign port. It was originally designed to protect the shipping industry, but since the U.S. no longer has a shipping industry, it really only protects the airlines (the reason why Virgin had to form Virgin Atlantic in the U.S.) Outdated ... perhaps. Still relevant, no doubt.

 

Since Princess does not have any U.S. flagged vessels (nor does anyone except for NCLA), it cannot transport passengers to and from a U.S. port without first making a call at a "distant" foreign port. And that definition changes by virtue of the itinerary. Accordingly, while Ensenada may not be considered a distant foreign port to someone in Southern California, the PSA requires that a RT to Hawaii from San Pedro make a call in Ensenada for a defined period of time (I think it's at least 4 hours, required) before the ship can return with U.S. Passengers to the U.S.

 

Unfortunately, Vancouver (I don't believe) is considred a "distant" foreign port for your purposes. So Princess (the carrier) woudl effectively be taking you from Seattle (US) via Vancouver to LA (US). Even though you might changes ships in the interim, the carrier remains the same. Although, I believe Victoria is considered a "distant" foreign port for other reasons. If you search distant foreign ports under PSA, you might find more information.

 

Now, if you wanted to switch carriers and say, sail Holland America from Vancouver back to L.A., I think you'd be fine.

 

But the cruise lines do (and must) follow the PSA.

[Atomica]

I've heard of people switching ships to get around this requirement. On my Rotterdam 1-day cruise, there were many passengers who had just disembarked the Golden Princess the same day and were switching to the Rotterdam in order to get to Seattle.

 

It was illegal to stay onboard Golden Princess and sail to Seattle, but perfectly legal to swtich to HAL and sail to Seattle...with both ships arriving on the same day.

 

Doesn't make a lot of sense, but those are the rules...

[cmarshall9]

My understanding based on discussions with Princess last year was that because it was a one night cruise, Vancouver was not considered a port but the destination. If the ship had gone to Victoria and then to Vancouver, Victoria would have been the foreign port and then Vancouver would have been the destination. But since it was an overnight cruise, there were no ports of call at all on that cruise. If Princess had combined the two cruises and sold them as one cruise, passengers could sail from Seattle to LA because Vancouver would have been a foreign port of call and not the destination.

[capnjack]

Accordingly, while Ensenada may not be considered a distant foreign port to someone in Southern California, the PSA requires that a RT to Hawaii from San Pedro make a call in Ensenada for a defined period of time (I think it's at least 4 hours, required) before the ship can return with U.S. Passengers to the U.S.

 

Unfortunately, Vancouver (I don't believe) is considred a "distant" foreign port for your purposes.

 

Just to clarify, Ensenada is not a distant foreign port under any circumstances. The rules are different for a round trip cruise (that starts and ends in the same city) versus a cruise that starts in one US city and ends in another US city. A round trip cruise (such as the LA to Hawaii RT) must make a stop in a foreign port (such as Ensenada), but it does not need to be a distant foreign port. Only a cruise that starts and ends in two different US cities need to stop at a distant foreign port.

 

A distant foreign port is a foreign port other than in North or Central America. The trans-canal cruises (LA to Ft Lauderdale and back) usually stop in Aruba and/or Cartagena Columbia (both in South America) to meet the distant foreign port requirement.

 

The other way to avoid the complications of PSA is to start or end in a non-US city. That is why the one way north and south bound Alaska cruises start or end in Vancouver rather than Seattle.

 

Finally it makes no difference that the cruses are sold as two separate cruises that you are combining into a B2B. For the purposes of PSA it still counts as one trip transporting a passenger from one US city to another.

[WineCountryCruiser]

The Passenger Services Act (PSA) is very complicated. There are different rules for sailings that begin and end in the same port (e.g. Hawaii RT from Los Angeles) and those that begin and end in different ports. The definition of a "distant" port is very specific. The only reasonably close "distant" ports to the U.S. are the ABC islands in the Caribbean (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao). Full transits of the Panama Canal that begin at a port on the U.S. west coast and end at a port on the U.S. east coast (or vice versa) typically stop in Aruba to meet this requirement.

 

DW and I had once considered taking B2B cruises on the Coral Princess with the first leg from San Francisco to Vancouver and the second from Vancouver to Whittier. We were told that this would be a violation of the PSA. However, we could have taken the first leg to Vancouver on the Coral, stayed in Vancouver for a day or two, and then boarded a different Princess ship for the second leg.

 

The text of the actual PSA is available on the Internet but is not easy to find (or read). As I recall, I found it on a Canadian website that dealt with ship activities between the U.S. and Canada on the St. Lawrence.

 

Craig

[cherylandtk]

My understanding based on discussions with Princess last year was that because it was a one night cruise, Vancouver was not considered a port but the destination. If the ship had gone to Victoria and then to Vancouver, Victoria would have been the foreign port and then Vancouver would have been the destination. But since it was an overnight cruise, there were no ports of call at all on that cruise. If Princess had combined the two cruises and sold them as one cruise, passengers could sail from Seattle to LA because Vancouver would have been a foreign port of call and not the destination.

Seattle to Vancouver (or Victoria, or both) is a US to Canada trip. The PVSA rule does not apply. Seattle to LA is US port to different US port and a violation of the PVSA. Princess cannot and does not offer it, and does not allow passengers to book both legs, Seattle to Vancouver then Vancouver to LA. One or the other is fine, but not both.

[DonnasMom&Dad]

Isn't there some kind of outdated U.S. maritime law prohibiting us from taking a B2B from Seattle to Vancouver and then from Vancouver to LA?

 

There are two different coastals this upcoming Sept that we would like to take.

 

TIA! :cool:

 

I already had to cancel one of these sailings, on advise of fellow posters, and Princess, the law pertains to everyone, US resident or not.

 

Cato

[Pam in CA]

I already had to cancel one of these sailings' date=' on advise of fellow posters, and Princess, the law pertains to everyone, US resident or not.[/b']

This is correct. In simple terms:

 

-- Round-trip where you embark and ultimately disembark at the same U.S. port: ship can go to a "near" foreign port such as Ensenada on a HI cruise, Vancouver or Victoria on a R/T out of Seattle.

 

-- If you embark at one U.S. port and ultimately disembark at a different U.S. port, the ship must go to a "far" foreign port. Ports in Mexico, Canada and most of the Caribbean do not qualify as a "far" foreign port.

 

This means that you cannot book a B2B whereby you embark in Seattle and eventually disembark in LA. It doesn't matter whether you've gone to Vancouver or not as that is not a "far" foreign port. It also doesn't count if you've booked on one Princess ship from Seattle to Vancouver and board another Princess ship from Vancouver to LA the same day. They may not catch the violation right away but they WILL catch it eventually and you'll be fined at least $300/pp. The ship is fined and they have your credit card # so they know where to put the charge. However, if you stay overnight in Vancouver and board a ship back to the U.S. the next day, it's not a violation as technically, you're embarking in Vancouver.

 

If you've ever taken the R/T cruise from LA to HI, there are numerous warnings not to miss the ship at any port in HI or else you'd be in violation. You can't disembark in Kauai, for instance, and plan on catching up with the ship the next day in Honolulu (Maui.)

[talio1]

This PSA law dates back to 1886. Outdated is a mild description. Some day the politicos in DC may take a look at this and update or repeal it-but I would not hold my breath.

Cheers:rolleyes:

[captainron]

Just to clarify, Ensenada is not a distant foreign port under any circumstances. The rules are different for a round trip cruise (that starts and ends in the same city) versus a cruise that starts in one US city and ends in another US city. A round trip cruise (such as the LA to Hawaii RT) must make a stop in a foreign port (such as Ensenada), but it does not need to be a distant foreign port. Only a cruise that starts and ends in two different US cities need to stop at a distant foreign port.

 

A distant foreign port is a foreign port other than in North or Central America. The trans-canal cruises (LA to Ft Lauderdale and back) usually stop in Aruba and/or Cartagena Columbia (both in South America) to meet the distant foreign port requirement.

 

The other way to avoid the complications of PSA is to start or end in a non-US city. That is why the one way north and south bound Alaska cruises start or end in Vancouver rather than Seattle.

 

Finally it makes no difference that the cruses are sold as two separate cruises that you are combining into a B2B. For the purposes of PSA it still counts as one trip transporting a passenger from one US city to another.

 

 

If the R/T Hawaii vessels didn't short stop in Ensenada would Princess then be allowed to sell liquor as "Duty Free" onboard? Interesting question I hope someone can answer.

 

Ciao for now!!!

[Putterdude]

As explained above, you can't do a b/b Seattle to Vancouver due to the outdated a protectionist PVSA. However, you can change lines or overnight in Vancouver and return on a different ship of the same line.

[Cruisin' Chick]

This PSA law dates back to 1886. Outdated is a mild description. Some day the politicos in DC may take a look at this and update or repeal it-but I would not hold my breath.

Cheers:rolleyes:

 

A few politicians (senator Inouye from Hawaii and then-senator Stevens from Alaska) were trying to help make the PVSA even more restrictive just a few years ago. Apparently NCLA was crying the blues about "unfair competition" from the cruiselines such as HAL and Princess that have the roundtrips from the west coast to Hawaii. And Inouye's wife supposedly is a "godmother" to one of the NCL ships.

 

We have quite a contentious thread on "Ask a Cruise Question" here on CC at the time with links to the comment area for Congress if you wanted to state your opinion. I joined many regular people, politicians (like the mayor of LA and the governor of California), west coast chamber of commerces and businesses that realized the negative financial impact to the ports of LA, SD, SF, Seattle that the changes would cause. Arnold and the governor of Hawaii did some lobbying to get the changes off the table.

 

So the danger is that there are forces trying to make the cruises we like more impossible for the cruiselines. Unfortunately, if ever there was a time for a full-blown discussion about completely repealing the law, that would have been the time.

[VibeGuy]

In short; Princess cannot transport you on a single ship between two US ports unless the itinerary calls somewhere outside North or Central America. Doesn't matter how you ticket it, finagle it or finesse it; it's a violation.

 

There is no prohibition on using another ship of the same line; it is perfectly acceptable under the PVSA to sail SEA-YVR on, say, Sapphire, and then YVR-LAX on Coral, with no 24 hour break.

 

While sailing a prohibited itinerary does violate the PVSA, the violation is charged against the cruiseline MONTHS after the sailing, not with a Customs and Border Protection agent holding out a bag of cash at the pier. HAL famously tried to charge people for potential PVSA violations and got their backsides handed to them in federal court (Miller v. Holland America Line). The lines are extremely conscious of proactively avoiding PVSA troubles and periodically review manifests of itineraries that could be combined to create a violation, and will summarily cancel and refund any bookings they find that would raise eyebrows.

 

I'm still waiting for my FOIA request on the number of PVSA violations assessed in the last five years at the Western ports. The port chiefs I've spoken with, though, swear it's a very, very, very small number (zero-to-single-digits a year).

 

E

[West Coast]

I'm still waiting for my FOIA request on the number of PVSA violations assessed in the last five years at the Western ports. The port chiefs I've spoken with, though, swear it's a very, very, very small number (zero-to-single-digits a year).

 

Agreed. This would be interesting to see.

[Sincity]

There is no prohibition on using another ship of the same line; it is perfectly acceptable under the PVSA to sail SEA-YVR on, say, Sapphire, and then YVR-LAX on Coral, with no 24 hour break.

 

 

That is interesting.......

 

Thanks for everyone's input.

[pablo222]

My understanding based on discussions with Princess last year was that because it was a one night cruise, Vancouver was not considered a port but the destination. If the ship had gone to Victoria and then to Vancouver, Victoria would have been the foreign port and then Vancouver would have been the destination. But since it was an overnight cruise, there were no ports of call at all on that cruise. If Princess had combined the two cruises and sold them as one cruise, passengers could sail from Seattle to LA because Vancouver would have been a foreign port of call and not the destination.

 

This isn't true, as Vancouver is not a 'distant foreign port' -- as defined by the act.

[dforeigner]

Well, here is a scenario that does not fit the generalization of needed to sail past Central America in order to clear the PSA restrictions.

 

 

Passengers on board Princess sailing out of Galveston, Texas (for the new folks joining CC, Princess no longer sails out of Texas), stopping at Majahual, Mexico, Roatan, Honduras, Belize, Belize, Cozumel, Mexico were allowed to book a back to back cruises with the same destinations.

[cherylandtk]

Well, here is a scenario that does not fit the generalization of needed to sail past Central America in order to clear the PSA restrictions. Passengers on board Princess sailing out of Galveston, Texas (for the new folks joining CC, Princess no longer sails out of Texas), stopping at Majahual, Mexico, Roatan, Honduras, Belize, Belize, Cozumel, Mexico were allowed to book a back to back cruises with the same destinations.

But this itinerary had nothing to do with PVSA restrictions, it was a round trip out of Galveston and did not transport pax between two US ports. The 'distant foreign port' requirement only comes into play when the beginning and ending ports are two DIFFERENT US ports.

[cherylandtk]

1. Where are you getting on the ship with your luggage? ___________

2. Where are you getting off the ship with your luggage? ___________

 

A. Are the two cities in 1 and 2 the same city? If no, continue. If yes, this is not a PVSA violation, stop here and go take the cruise.

 

B. Are the two cities in 1 and 2 both in the USA? If yes, continue. If no, this is not a PVSA violation. Stop here and go take the cruise.

 

C. Does your cruise visit a distant foreign port? (Ex: Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Fanning Island or a port outside of North America, Central America, Bermuda or the West Indies). If no, continue. If yes, this is not a PVSA violation, stop here and go take the cruise.

 

D. It appears your cruise is a violation of the PVSA. Sorry, but you cannot be transported between two US ports without going to a distant foreign port.

 

 

(For the record I will add that if you stopped at question A, because you are on a round trip cruise, if your cruise stops anywhere in-between and you are on a foreign flagged ship, then you must stop also at some foreign port. Anywhere foreign, spitting distance is fine. But all the cruise lines using foreign flagged ships know this and always put that foreign port in.)

[Pam in CA]

A few politicians (senator Inouye from Hawaii and then-senator Stevens from Alaska) were trying to help make the PVSA even more restrictive just a few years ago. Apparently NCLA was crying the blues about "unfair competition" from the cruiselines such as HAL and Princess that have the roundtrips from the west coast to Hawaii. And Inouye's wife supposedly is a "godmother" to one of the NCL ships.

 

We have quite a contentious thread on "Ask a Cruise Question" here on CC at the time with links to the comment area for Congress if you wanted to state your opinion. I joined many regular people' date=' politicians (like the mayor of LA and the governor of California), west coast chamber of commerces and businesses that realized the negative financial impact to the ports of LA, SD, SF, Seattle that the changes would cause. Arnold and the governor of Hawaii did some lobbying to get the changes off the table.

 

So the danger is that there are forces trying to make the cruises we like more impossible for the cruiselines. Unfortunately, if ever there was a time for a full-blown discussion about completely repealing the law, that would have been the time.[/quote']Yup. This actually happened. NCL-A was having financial problems with their U.S.-flagged ships sailing cruises around HI. Sen. Inouye introduced a bill that would require foreign-flagged ships to spend something like at least 50% of their time in a foreign port plus several other onerous conditions that would essentially kill the HI, Alaska, New England, NY and FL cruise industry. He claimed it was due to unfair competition from foreign-flagged cruiselines (which, of course, meant all other cruiselines other than NCL-A) and to save perhaps 1,000 jobs in HI.

 

Yes, his wife is a godmother to one of the NCL-A ships so his intentions are somewhat suspect. Once people realized the extent of the affect on the cruise industry (i.e., to the tune of perhaps $100,000,000 and tens of thousands of jobs throughout the U.S.), Sen. Inouye tried to amend the Act to apply only to HI cruises. The final decision was with Homeland Security and they decided to not make a decision. Thank god.

[caribill]

The final decision was with Homeland Security and they decided to not make a decision. Thank god.

 

Nice to know you can always rely on Homeland Security to not make a decision.

[spongerob]

Well, here is a scenario that does not fit the generalization of needed to sail past Central America in order to clear the PSA restrictions.

 

 

Passengers on board Princess sailing out of Galveston, Texas (for the new folks joining CC, Princess no longer sails out of Texas), stopping at Majahual, Mexico, Roatan, Honduras, Belize, Belize, Cozumel, Mexico were allowed to book a back to back cruises with the same destinations.

Those cruises were all round trip to and from Galveston. Therefore, no conflict with PVSA.