Couldn't Book

[jnc411]

Well the good ole passanger act got us yesterday, I thought what I had planned would work but NO. We planned to do the RT out of Vancouver inside passage, then the B/B on the same ship home to LA , Well no luck . and another ship itinerary doesn't work for us , so our well laid plans are all messed up due to the passanger act. Now I have to find another cruise that works with our time frame, darn it. Just wanted to vent and I knew the folks at CC would understand my dissappointment.

Cori

[Cruise Junky]

so to confirm, you're starting in Vancouver, going up to Alaska, staying on the same ship to return to Vancouver, then staying on the same ship to LA? if that's right, it's perfectly legal and whomever you spoke to is wrong. Try again and if they say no, have it escalated to their legal department.

[paul929207]

I agree with Cruise Junky, your proposed itinerary is legal. Talk to someone higher up at Princess or the TA

[jnc411]

so to confirm, you're starting in Vancouver, going up to Alaska, staying on the same ship to return to Vancouver, then staying on the same ship to LA? if that's right, it's perfectly legal and whomever you spoke to is wrong. Try again and if they say no, have it escalated to their legal department.

 

HI well I will try again , I spoke with three different people , first the TA I was trying to book with , she then called Princess and they said it is a no no. So then I called Princess my self and they recited the passangers act to me and said it is a no no and that the booking would not go through. The plan was to take the Sapphire from Vancouver round trip inland passage back to Vancouver , then continue on with the next voyage from Vancouver to LA . So am I right or what. They were very sure when they said we could not do it. But about 2 weeks ago I called someone there and they said yes that would work , so I don't know. I am a bit confused.

Thanks for the input, nice to know I am not nuts :)

Cori

[Potstech]

If they still say no book it as two seperate cruises in the same cabin.

[ar1950]

Well the good ole passanger act got us yesterday.....

Cori

 

OK, I'll bite. Just what is the "passenger act". Wife and I have been looking at doing something similar. I keep reading about others that do back-to-backs and this is just confusing to read what happened to the OP. Any clarification would be appreciated.

[Cruise Junky]

HI well I will try again , I spoke with three different people , first the TA I was trying to book with , she then called Princess and they said it is a no no. So then I called Princess my self and they recited the passangers act to me and said it is a no no and that the booking would not go through. The plan was to take the Sapphire from Vancouver round trip inland passage back to Vancouver , then continue on with the next voyage from Vancouver to LA . So am I right or what. They were very sure when they said we could not do it. But about 2 weeks ago I called someone there and they said yes that would work , so I don't know. I am a bit confused.

Thanks for the input, nice to know I am not nuts :)

Cori

 

You're definitely not nuts. You're sailing from Vancouver to LA - absolutely nothing wrong with that. Have them escalate it to someone that knows what they're talking about.

[YEG Cruizr 68]

I think the problem with this itinerary is because Princess sells the Alaska cruise both as one 14 day cruise or two separate 7-day one-way cruises. If looked at from the perspective of the two 7 day cruises, the second leg (southbound from Alaska) and then the B2B onto LA would indeed violate the PVSA because you'd be going from Whittier to LA without a distant foreign port stop. That might be what the Princess reps are struggling with. Try to get them to treat the Alaska leg as a single cruise and then you shouldn't have an issue with the PVSA. You might, however, lose the extra cruise credit.

[runnerodb83]

I think the problem with this itinerary is because Princess sells the Alaska cruise both as one 14 day cruise or two separate 7-day one-way cruises. If looked at from the perspective of the two 7 day cruises, the second leg (southbound from Alaska) and then the B2B onto LA would indeed violate the PVSA because you'd be going from Whittier to LA without a distant foreign port stop. That might be what the Princess reps are struggling with. Try to get them to treat the Alaska leg as a single cruise and then you shouldn't have an issue with the PVSA. You might, however, lose the extra cruise credit.

 

Well wait a minute, is this roundtrip 7 day from vancouver? Or 14 days? If its 14 days, then no you cannot do it becasue whittier is a port of embarkation and LA a port of disembarkation (even if you dont intend to disembark in whittier). Basically, if they classify you as "in transit" passengers in a port where other people disembark, thats what counts.

 

So OP, I interpereted your information to be that you are on a 7 day RT to/from Vancouver. Or is it 14 days (which, in the eyes of the US govt, is really 2 7day cruises).

[jnc411]

Hi , I am back. Well I called another person at Princess (went through the personal cruise consultants desk this time ) and explained my problem , she was very nice and tried " 4 ways to Sunday" to book it , and it was shot down. They have a special list of cruises (special Princess internet link )that can not be linked, either as separate cruises or back to back, and this is one of those cruise's, she went up the authority ladder to get the answer . For those of you wondering the plan was: 7 day round trip inside passage out of Vancouver, then the second cruise Vancouver to LA, they can not link it , because they do not consider any of them foreign ports, thus the Passanger Act. Silly as it is , it is the law , So we will not be going . But thank you to all of you that tried to help us with this little problem.

So not back to the drawing board for our next cruise. Its all good. Thanks again all.

Cori

[paul929207]

OK, I'll bite. Just what is the "passenger act". Wife and I have been looking at doing something similar. I keep reading about others that do back-to-backs and this is just confusing to read what happened to the OP. Any clarification would be appreciated.

The Passenger Vessel Service Act (PVSA) regulates the carrying of passengers on cruise ships. The Pride of America which is an NCL ship doing Hawaiian cruises is the only one exempt from it.

 

All other major cruise ships have three choices:

1. Any cruise that begins and/or ends out side the US is fine.

2. If a cruise start and ends in the same US port, it is ok if it visits at least one foriegn port.

3. If it start and ends in different foriegn ports, it must visit a "distant" foriegn port. The nearest of these are Aruba and South America

[LARGIN]

We have done this a couple of times. I had to personally talk to a supervisor at Princess to explain.. Ours was Vancouver/Whittier. Whittier/Vancouver, Vancouver/San Francisco. I had to explain that it was a Vancouver to San Francisco cruise, the long way. :D

[Cruise Junky]

Hi , I am back. Well I called another person at Princess (went through the personal cruise consultants desk this time ) and explained my problem , she was very nice and tried " 4 ways to Sunday" to book it , and it was shot down. They have a special list of cruises (special Princess internet link )that can not be linked, either as separate cruises or back to back, and this is one of those cruise's, she went up the authority ladder to get the answer . For those of you wondering the plan was: 7 day round trip inside passage out of Vancouver, then the second cruise Vancouver to LA, they can not link it , because they do not consider any of them foreign ports, thus the Passanger Act. Silly as it is , it is the law , So we will not be going . But thank you to all of you that tried to help us with this little problem.

So not back to the drawing board for our next cruise. Its all good. Thanks again all.

Cori

 

Then someone at Princess has messed up on the programming. It's perfectly legal and done all the time. You just can't start and end in two different US ports and you're not, you're starting in Vancouver. If you really want to book this insist it's escalated to Legal. It is true that the Whittier to Vancouver to LA should not be combined, that's an illegal cruise...but adding the portion of the Vancouver to Whittier makes it legal.

[RickEk]

I think the problem with this itinerary is because Princess sells the Alaska cruise both as one 14 day cruise or two separate 7-day one-way cruises. If looked at from the perspective of the two 7 day cruises, the second leg (southbound from Alaska) and then the B2B onto LA would indeed violate the PVSA because you'd be going from Whittier to LA without a distant foreign port stop. That might be what the Princess reps are struggling with. Try to get them to treat the Alaska leg as a single cruise and then you shouldn't have an issue with the PVSA. You might, however, lose the extra cruise credit.

 

Correct... if the first cruise is booked as a 14 day cruise then the second voyage should not be a violation of the PVSA.

[xltiny]

Not to Hijack this thread but I am now concerned as well, I have a 7 Day RT Vancouver Alaska Cruise on the Island Princess Sept 16,2013 booked with a 2 day Pacific Coastal Vancouver > San Francisco Sept 23,2013 booked together. I booked the first leg with a travel agent and the 2nd leg is booked directly on Princess. I asked the agent whether this was in violation and was told I was fine. Is it really ok? It's been a couple of days and everything still shows on the cruise personalizer.

 

Thanks

[beg3yrs]

Not to Hijack this thread but I am now concerned as well, I have a 7 Day RT Vancouver Alaska Cruise on the Island Princess Sept 16,2013 booked with a 2 day Pacific Coastal Vancouver > San Francisco Sept 23,2013 booked together. I booked the first leg with a travel agent and the 2nd leg is booked directly on Princess. I asked the agent whether this was in violation and was told I was fine. Is it really ok? It's been a couple of days and everything still shows on the cruise personalizer.

 

Thanks

 

Yes, you're fine. You are going from Vancouver to San Francisco, the long way.

[VibeGuy]

Princess is really blowing this one, but the confusion is understandable.

 

The way they market 14NT "Voyage of the Glaciers" as a single voyage number for two cruises that, if separated, would cause a PVSA violation is causing the automated rule check to trip offline, I suspect - because the second half of that, alone, paired with a Vancouver-LA coastal, *would* be a rule violation.

 

I can *totally* believe that the OP is getting bad advice from Princess on this one, but Princess needs to have an escalation path that can resolve it.

 

As for the second cruise credit issue if it's booked as a 14NT? Call after the trip and you'll get the second credit.

[NavyVeteran]

I agree with the previous posters that the proposed itenerary - Vancouver to Whittier to Vancouver to Los Angeles - is legal.

 

However, I saw one point of confusion. It does not matter whether Princess calls the Vancouver to Whittier to Vancouver part of the cruise one 14 day cruise or two 7 day cruises. They only thing that matters is the actual itenerary for the specific passenger. In this case, it is a cruise from Vancouver to Los Angeles, which is legal - the intermediate stops in Whittier and Vancouver do not matter.

 

I suspect the problem is that the Princess computer system is programmed not to allow the combination of the Whitter to Vancouver cruise and the Vancouver to Los Angeles cruise - as it should not. However, adding the other cruise to the beginning makes it legal, and apparently the Princess computer system is not programmed to consider all three segments together.

 

The Princess representatives the OP talked to are definitely wrong in this case.

[jnc411]

Hi, I am the OP , I need to clarify something , the ship is RT Vancouver with no stop in Whittier, it goes inland passage with Glacier Bay BUT no stop in Whittier, may be that is the problem. It is listed as two cruises , first one RT Vancouver, second one Vancouver to LA, so it is not listed as a l4 day (not offered as a 14 day) , but two separate 7 day cruises. With two different voyage codes on the bookings , so that could be part of the problem.

Whatever it is , it isn't happening , I am done fussing with it. But it was a learning experience, and thanks to all of you for your input.

Cori

[Cruise Junky]

Hi, I am the OP , I need to clarify something , the ship is RT Vancouver with no stop in Whittier, it goes inland passage with Glacier Bay BUT no stop in Whittier, may be that is the problem. It is listed as two cruises , first one RT Vancouver, second one Vancouver to LA, so it is not listed as a l4 day (not offered as a 14 day) , but two separate 7 day cruises. With two different voyage codes on the bookings , so that could be part of the problem.

Whatever it is , it isn't happening , I am done fussing with it. But it was a learning experience, and thanks to all of you for your input.

Cori

 

I've done the exact same cruise. As we've all said, it's fine if you want to pursue it, escalate it - but it sounds like you're done.

[LARGIN]

Still Vancouver to LA so OK.

[thinfool]

This looks like a 2014 itinerary.

 

My opinion, it will be fixed before the booking season gets much farther along.

[Thrak]

OK, I'll bite. Just what is the "passenger act". Wife and I have been looking at doing something similar. I keep reading about others that do back-to-backs and this is just confusing to read what happened to the OP. Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

Google "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886"

 

It will explain why I can't take the Grand from LA to Vancouver and then stay on the ship and return to SF. I was bummed but learned something.

[Coral]

Cori - you should be able to book this. Maybe try working with a TA who understands this. They often have access to different supervisors.

[orangetabby]

Google "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886"

 

It will explain why I can't take the Grand from LA to Vancouver and then stay on the ship and return to SF. I was bummed but learned something.

 

Call me crazy, but does anyone else think that a law originally written in 1886 is badly out of date and is in serious need of updating. In this day and age of global travel it just doesn't make sense anymore. Not sure what the original intent of the law was, but we're living in a much different world today than our ancestors did in 1886. Just my 2 cents worth.