NCL REP says "NO!" b2b2b JONES ACT embark Seatle final debark Miami

[time2cruise1]

Take the train from Seattle to Vancouver. It's a lovely ride and once you get tired of being on the train, you will arrive in Vancouver. Great scenery along the way.

 

The train station in Vancouver is a very short taxi ride from the pier and taxies are available at the station. Buy your tickets early. In September, the train sold out a few months in advance of our trip.

 

No reason too. They can and will be able to book the whole trip. Too bad it is going to take a little work. :)

Edited November 3, 2011 by time2cruise1

[smeyer418]

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....

[SeaShark]

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.

Edited November 3, 2011 by SeaShark

[sparks1093]

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....

 

I'm likely to be retired before we see an answer;) (maybe I'll eat those words, I'll keep the ketchup ready:)).

[smeyer418]

I'm likely to be retired before we see an answer;) (maybe I'll eat those words, I'll keep the ketchup ready:)).

 

 

generally they answer in a couple of days. I have been pretty successful in getting responses. I even got a response from the Swedish coast guard-which has no helicopter by the way! Most government agencies respond pretty promptly as long as you are civil. I still haven't a response from the NYC EDC on where the Breakaway will dock....

[smeyer418]

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.

because the NCL computer where this must be booked is programmed to not allow it....

[Partyatsea]

I would love for NCL CCer to repond to this ?

[time2cruise1]

because the NCL computer where this must be booked is programmed to not allow it....

 

Exactly as it was programmed to allow me to book a b2b that was not legal. They have since blocked it in the system as they did incorrectly on this situation.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mtwingcpa]

Seems to me that the authority, NCL, is saying no. Whether they are right or wrong they are the final arbiter of this question.

 

Agreed. There seem to be cases where the cruise lines "err" on the conservative side of PVSA situations that otherwise appear to be allowable. But if that's what they want to do, you probably won't be able to "lawyer" them into doing differently.

[time2cruise1]

Agreed. There seem to be cases where the cruise lines "err" on the conservative side of PVSA situations that otherwise appear to be allowable. But if that's what they want to do, you probably won't be able to "lawyer" them into doing differently.

 

Those same people insist you can't bring soda onboard. No need to lawyer them into it but all that needs to happen is to have an executive bring it to their legal department. Reservation department is not going to help and will just defend what the computer screen is telling them.

 

If the OP wants to do this cruise it can be done.

[Seamo]

Hello to all,!

 

We tossed and turned (dreaming) ... no one will answer ...

... they will all answer saying ... " your damned ". ...

they will all answer saying : " Rotate, you are ... Good to Go "

EVERYONE, yes, no or multiple choice. :) WE THANK YOU !!!

_______ ________ _________ _________

 

by SeaShark ---- Today at 03:40 PM

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.

_______ ________ _________ _______ ________

Today, 11:25 AM sjnyc323 sjnyc323 is offline Cool Cruiser

Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 1,607

**** sjnyc wrote:

" My friend just did the three trips back to back on the Pearl. Seattle to Vancouver. Vancouver to LA and LA to Miami this past September/ October. "

_____ _______ ______________ _____________ ______

 

The sjnyc post ( above ) adds some tangible proof that

( at the least ) that b2b2b CAN/was done. Can this friend join the Que?

[We read of someone who was already booked for this

(Seattle>Vancouver/Vancouver>LA/LA>Miami (stop in D.F.P.Cartenga)

and we hoped to connect with this CC member on completion.]

 

---- We got started with THIS by (?lucky?) chance ... booking that

leg 1 with a " group cruise Co. " ... later ... leg 3 was offered

and circumstances allowed our booking of that .... and

NOW, we are trying to add the cement of leg 2. ....... and then

----------- is it a cement foundation or cement booties %)!?!?

 

The interpretation appears to be the key. When on the Phone with

NCL, I felt the Rep did not 'GET' the Passenger ORIGINAL EMBARK -US(Seattle)

--- FINAL DISEMBARK US(Miami) FDP -Cartenga,Columbia.

 

She consulted W/Supervisor and came back with 1+3 ok. 2+3 ok.

1+2 Violates 1+2+3 Violates (because 0f 1 and/or 2).

 

So we are clewarly (spelling intentional) wondering WHICH interpretation will prevail --- for us.

 

Thanks again .. cause all we want is to get out to .. :) Seamo :)

[SeaShark]

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.

[time2cruise1]

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.

 

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

[smeyer418]

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.

 

 

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)

Edited November 3, 2011 by smeyer418

[SeaShark]

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.

[SeaShark]

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.

[mpk218]

This b2b2b is a legal booking as described by the OP.

 

I'd email Sheehan , he loves this stuff , and hates to turn down a loyal customer. Really

 

;)

[njhorseman]

generally they answer in a couple of days. I have been pretty successful in getting responses. I even got a response from the Swedish coast guard-which has no helicopter by the way! Most government agencies respond pretty promptly as long as you are civil. I still haven't a response from the NYC EDC on where the Breakaway will dock....

 

It will be at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal...that information was part of the 10/06/11 press release :

 

http://www.ncl.com/nclweb/pressroom/pressRelease.html?storyCode=PR_100611

 

..."Norwegian Breakaway will be the largest ship ever to homeport in New York City, bringing more passengers, generating more spending, and creating more jobs in our City," said New York City Economic Development Corporation President Seth W. Pinsky. "Thank you to Norwegian Cruise Line for their commitment to New York City, and for making Manhattan Cruise Terminal the homeport for this amazing new state-of-the-art ship."...

 

I read in another article that the passenger gangways at the terminal will be modified to allow the ship to dock further from the finger pier, in order to accommodate the Breakaway's overhanging lifeboats. You may recall that when the Epic was in Manhattan, they had to drop some of the lifeboats from the ship before docking in order to allow the Epic to be close enough to the pier for the gangways to reach the ship.

[Seamo]

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 :)

[smeyer418]

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.

? 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

Edited November 3, 2011 by smeyer418

[SeaShark]

? 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?

[njhorseman]

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.

 

 

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.

Edited November 3, 2011 by njhorseman

[SeaShark]

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.

[mtwingcpa]

No need to lawyer them into it but all that needs to happen is to have an executive bring it to their legal department.

 

I agree that the cruise in question is probably allowable under the PVSA. And I also agree that if you can push the right buttons at corporate headquarters they MIGHT reconsider their position.

 

But my point is about choosing battles and deciding how you want to spend (or potentially waste) your time. When dealing with large companies, no matter how obviously incorrect they might be, I've often found it's most practical to vote with my feet and take my business elsewhere. :-)

[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.