Ensenada as Port of disembarkation

[Gonzo70]

[quote name='Karynanne']I would make very sure that Victoria is considered a "distant" foreign port. I doubt it.


[/quote]


No port in Canada is considered a "distant" port as defined by the PVSA. Not that it matters though, that has nothing to do with whether or not one would be permitted to book a Hawaii to Ensenada followed by Ensenada to Seattle trip and end their cruise early in Victoria.

If one starts OR ends their cruise in a foreign port (any foreign port, makes no difference if it is near or distant) the PVSA is not violated. The issue is whether one would be allowed to board in the first place an itinerary that would be illegal if sailed to completion by saying they are planning to debark the second leg early in Victoria. Having the intention to debark early (and therefore not violate the PVSA) may not be enough for local authorities to permit you to start the second leg of the back-to-back as the itinerary the ship has [I]planned [/I]would create a PVSA violation.

[3418ahl]

[quote name='Karynanne']I would make very sure that Victoria is considered a "distant" foreign port. I doubt it.

We did a lot of investigation into taking the Honolulu to Seattle (B2B) cruises, and after doing the research, we decided to bow out. First we were told that we would have to disembark in Ensenada...take the bus back to San Diego...and then get on the bus once again, for the trip back to Ensenada to embark. BUT then there wasn't even a guarantee that we would be allowed on the ship.

We opted to change our plans and take a Transatlantic on Reflection instead.[/quote]

1. You would not be allowed back on, since the Hawaii to Seattle b2b violates the law.

2. Since the conversation concerns passengers DEBARKING the cruise in Victoria, they would be debarking outside the US, thus the question of distant foreign port is irrelevant.

3. The question remains whether one can do this and avoid violating the law. The answers seem to differ.

[DAllenTCY]

Thanks for the clarification. The key factor is where the ship is going, not the individual. Therefore, I now see more clearly why one cannot disembark in Victoria for this itinerary. If the ship were destined for Vancouver (as all of the previous ones I have been on) then it would be ok.
David

[bob278]

Again, I point out the government's inconsistency. They won't consider how the cruise lie defines the trip (Honolulu-Ensenada, perfectly legal and Ensenada - Seattle - also perfectly legal). They CHOOSE to define it as where you get on and off.

But someone who gets on in Honolulu and off in Victoria they won't allow. In this case they CHOOSE to define it as how the cruise line does.

Sort of like a fellow I knew years ago. A group of us played paycheck poker. He worked in a subsidiary and had a voucher number on his stub that was different from his paycheck number. It took us a while to figure out that he was using whichever number favored him. Since he didn't show us both pieces, it was just luck that we caught on.

Both instances are inconsistent and somehow both also feel crooked.

[Gonzo70]

[quote name='bob278']Again, I point out the government's inconsistency. They won't consider how the cruise lie defines the trip (Honolulu-Ensenada, perfectly legal and Ensenada - Seattle - also perfectly legal). They CHOOSE to define it as where you get on and off.

But someone who gets on in Honolulu and off in Victoria they won't allow. In this case they CHOOSE to define it as how the cruise line does.

Sort of like a fellow I knew years ago. A group of us played paycheck poker. He worked in a subsidiary and had a voucher number on his stub that was different from his paycheck number. It took us a while to figure out that he was using whichever number favored him. Since he didn't show us both pieces, it was just luck that we caught on.

Both instances are inconsistent and somehow both also feel crooked.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying, but I personally see it a bit differently and do not see it as crooked or inconsistent. What the government cares about is the first and last port of a cruise one intends to take; if one is doing a single cruise (not a back-to-back) then what they look at is the port the cruise starts in and the port the cruise ends in. If one is doing back-to-backs they look at the port the first cruise in and the port the final voyage is scheduled to end in. My understanding is this is what they are looking at when deciding if a PVSA violation will occur. They are not profiting by this or benefiting so I do not see it as sinister. They are also not doing it arbitrarily or inconsistently and the law is visible for anybody to read. The law was created for a purpose (protecting American jobs and workers) and still has benefits. While it sometimes throws a wrench in people's cruise plans, fortunately it is not frequent.

[Cruise Junky]

It happens all the time with Hawaii cruises....miss the ship in LA/SF/San Diego and you've missed the whole thing. That is why it is very important to remember to bring your passport or duplicate Birth Certificate with you for round trip Hawaiian cruises. You cannot fly to catch the ship in the islands.

 

David

 

I'm not going to say you're wrong yet, but give me a couple more hours ;) as the party in question should be boarding in Honolulu today. There was a couple on the Princess board that missed their Hawaii departure last week. Princess has arranged for them to fly to Honolulu to embark but they must disembark in Ensenada. They've arranged a limo to pick them up and take them to San Diego airport. I'll let you know if they run into issues but Princess okayed the whole thing and has arranged disembarkation in Ensenada instead of LA.

[DAllenTCY]

A couple of scenarios come to mind, but I'll wait and see. Missing 1/3 of a cruise isn't much fun.

David

[Cruise Junky]

A couple of scenarios come to mind, but I'll wait and see. Missing 1/3 of a cruise isn't much fun.

David

 

Agree, not sure I'd have done it, but I guess 2/3 is better than none.

 

Here's the thread....

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1748284

[If only]

Who told you this and in what dept?

 

frank

 

The back to back dept, but before them we talked to the Captains Club as well. The Jones Act says whatever name's are on the manifest is what they go by regardless of where you get off. They also advised us that we would be denied boarding if we did get a booking. The only way to do it is to get on in Sydney do BtBtB and get off in Seattle.

[Gonzo70]

The back to back dept, but before them we talked to the Captains Club as well. The Jones Act says whatever name's are on the manifest is what they go by regardless of where you get off. They also advised us that we would be denied boarding if we did get a booking. The only way to do it is to get on in Sydney do BtBtB and get off in Seattle.

 

Not Jones Act - Jones Act has nothing to do with cruise ships. It is the PVSA that governs passenger vessels such as cruise ships and ferries.

[tunaman2011]

Greetings

 

All this crazy discussion proves is that the PVSA needs a serious rewrite. It was intended as an aid to American ships and companies but has long outlived it's usefulness. Passenger service is now in the hands of airlines, almost no one travels by ship to get from point a to point b.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

[Gonzo70]

Greetings

 

All this crazy discussion proves is that the PVSA needs a serious rewrite. It was intended as an aid to American ships and companies but has long outlived it's usefulness. Passenger service is now in the hands of airlines, almost no one travels by ship to get from point a to point b.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

 

Not going to happen - at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. The last time revision of the PVSA was considered it was to make the restrictions even more stringent. The PVSA still does protect small U.S. cruise lines (i.e. those operating in Alaska, Great Lakes etc.) as well as various ferries across the coast. There is also more to the PVSA than the issue with stops at foreign ports; were the PVSA abolished and foreign flagged ships allowed to operate itineraries solely in the U.S. there would be labor law, tax and other issues unfavorable to the cruise lines that would arise. The PVSA still has utility and the cruise line do not want it abolished. There are not many itineraries where the PVSA impacts cruises, so generally it does not have much of a negative impact.