B2B/Foreign Port/PVA question

[crackupforlaughs]

I tried to book two cruises, back to back but with different itineraries: First Seattle-Vancouver (1 night); disembark/reembark same day and take same ship (Golden) Vancouver to LA. Princess said I cannot do this because of PVA.

 

My question: how is this different than B2Bs originating in Anchorage to Vancouver, disembark/reembark same day in Vancouver back to Anchorage? (e.g. Star Princess leaving Anchorage May 23, 2015 Southbound to Vancouver and then book Star leaving Vancouver to Anchorage on May 30)?

 

Vancouver is the only "foreign" port in both instances, and is only involved on the disembark/re-embark day.

 

What am I not getting?:(

 

Thanks.

[likeadisguise]

Because in the first instance, you finish at a different domestic port than where you started. (SEA - YVR - LAX)

 

In the second instance, you start and end at the same port.

 

PVSA applies to one-way trips between domestic ports.

[hockeygal54]

So why can't he do that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[likeadisguise]

Because you have to visit a "distant foreign port" to travel between two separate domestic ports without violating the PVSA, and Canada doesn't qualify.

[Vexorg]

The only way you could do this is to either:

 

- Board a different ship in Vancouver

- Wait at least 24 hours before boarding the same ship (not an option since it sails to LA on the same day.)

 

The only reason the 1-day cruises even exist is because of the PVSA, otherwise the repositioning cruises would just go straight from Seattle to LA. The reason that cruises can go between Vancouver and Whittier is that they are originating from or traveling to a foreign port.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vexorg

[Pam in CA]

Because you have to visit a "distant foreign port" to travel between two separate domestic ports without violating the PVSA, and Canada doesn't qualify.

In a nutshell, the PVSA applies only to passengers originally embarking and with their final destination in the US.

 

If you embark in one US port and disembark at the same US port, no matter how many B2Bs, it's called a "closed loop" and the ship (and you) must go to a "near" foreign port. "Near" is Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. You only need your birth certificate and ID.

 

If you embark in one US port and your final disembarkation is at a different US port, the ship (and you) must go to a "far" foreign port. That would include South America. You must have a passport.

 

The OP wants to initially embark in Seattle and disembark in LA so unless the ship's itinerary stops in South America, it's an illegal combination of cruises.

 

The PVSA is why Hawaiian, Mexican Riviera and CA Coastal cruises out of LA stop in Ensenada. They have to go to a "near" foreign port.

[hockeygal54]

But WHY? Some more bureaucratic BS? Not being snarky I just don't understand.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[likeadisguise]

It's a US Law regulating foreign carriers (it's frequently mistakenly referred to as the Jones Act, but the Jones Act refers to shipping goods, not carrying passengers).

 

It's not just Princess, all foreign-flagged ships are subject to the law.

[skynight]

But WHY? Some more bureaucratic BS? Not being snarky I just don't understand.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

 

The Passenger Vessel Service Act originally dates from 1886. It's original intention was to provide protection to US flagged passenger vessels. No current federally elected official was involved. Action by Congress is the only way to change it. I don't believe it is on Congress' agenda right now.

 

Like others have said for the same foreign flagged ship to embark passengers at one US port and disembark them at a different US port the ship is required to go to at least one distant foreign port. The closest distant foreign ports to the Alaska and the lower 48 are in South America and Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire. This is why the current routes of all cruise ships that travel through the Panama Canal between ports in California and ports in Florida stop in at least one of the ABC islands or Colombia.

 

Don't blame Princess, they are just following current law.

[RickEk]

Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of the PVSA

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

[crackupforlaughs]

Thanks. So just to make sure I understand, if another Princess ship or another ship in general were leaving Vancouver on the date I arrive, I could get on it and go to LA (or another US port) with no problem. The main problem is that, in my original query, I would be boarding the same ship as I arrived on and that is a no-no since it then goes straight to a different US port?

 

Or is it that I arrive in Vancouver from one US city via ship and intend to go to another US port via ship without other stops and that is the no-no ... and it doesn't matter which or whose ship?

 

Anyway, it's too bad... so much for my more "interesting" way to to go LA (the one-night to Vancouver involves several people; the LA leg would be me solo... so I guess it will be the one that gets cancelled).

 

I hope this made sense... found myself getting myself confused!:eek:

[Colo Cruiser]

Thanks. So just to make sure I understand, if another Princess ship or another ship in general were leaving Vancouver on the date I arrive, I could get on it and go to LA (or another US port) with no problem. The main problem is that, in my original query, I would be boarding the same ship as I arrived on and that is a no-no since it then goes straight to a different US port?

 

Or is it that I arrive in Vancouver from one US city via ship and intend to go to another US port via ship without other stops and that is the no-no ... and it doesn't matter which or whose ship?

 

Anyway, it's too bad... so much for my more "interesting" way to to go LA (the one-night to Vancouver involves several people; the LA leg would be me solo... so I guess it will be the one that gets cancelled).

 

I hope this made sense... found myself getting myself confused!:eek:

 

Yes different ship you could sail right away.

Or at least 24 hours off the same ship to get back on again, which pretty much never happens.

[caribill]

It is also why you cannot fly Air Canada from Seattle to Chicago without changing planes in Canada.

[Pam in CA]

But WHY? Some more bureaucratic BS? Not being snarky I just don't understand.

It was enacted by Congress to protect the US ship building and shipping industries and it remains law in order to continue to do so. If it were repealed, it would impact US shipping and foreign trade significantly as it applies to foreign-flagged ships and boats. While an annoyance to cruise ship passengers, cruise ships represent a small percentage affected.

 

Because of the PVSA, the US shipping industry is still alive. If repealed, the impact would be significant on what we pay for goods and US shipping would probably die out.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Pam in CA

[caribill]

It was enacted by Congress to protect the US ship building and shipping industries and it remains law in order to continue to do so. If it were repealed, it would impact US shipping and foreign trade significantly as it applies to foreign-flagged ships and boats. While an annoyance to cruise ship passengers, cruise ships represent a small percentage affected.

 

Because of the PVSA, the US shipping industry is still alive. If repealed, the impact would be significant on what we pay for goods and US shipping would probably die out.

 

It does not have to be repealed. Just revise it to exclude ocean cruise ships.

 

It also applies to passenger ships on the Mississippi River, but for that it does preserve American jobs and that part could remain in the law.

[skynight]

Thanks. So just to make sure I understand, if another Princess ship or another ship in general were leaving Vancouver on the date I arrive, I could get on it and go to LA (or another US port) with no problem. The main problem is that, in my original query, I would be boarding the same ship as I arrived on and that is a no-no since it then goes straight to a different US port?

 

Or is it that I arrive in Vancouver from one US city via ship and intend to go to another US port via ship without other stops and that is the no-no ... and it doesn't matter which or whose ship?

 

Anyway, it's too bad... so much for my more "interesting" way to to go LA (the one-night to Vancouver involves several people; the LA leg would be me solo... so I guess it will be the one that gets cancelled).

 

I hope this made sense... found myself getting myself confused!:eek:

 

What you propose is sailing from Seattle to L.A., two different US ports on the same ship without stopping at a distant foreign port. As explained by all that posted here the laws will not allow this. Search PVSA on the internet and read up on the law for a greater understanding. You can take land or air transportation to Vancouver, embark in Vancouver and disembark in L.A. Also you could sail from Seattle to Vancouver, change ships, assuming you can find one, and the sail from Vancouver back to a U.S. port.

[chengkp75]

It does not have to be repealed. Just revise it to exclude ocean cruise ships.

 

It also applies to passenger ships on the Mississippi River, but for that it does preserve American jobs and that part could remain in the law.

 

Ah, but here is where you run afoul of American "fair play". Say you revise the PVSA to allow foreign flag cruise ships to carry passengers from one US port to another. What then keeps the Alaskan State Marine Highway ferries, or the Washington State Ferries, or coastal casino boats from applying for the same allowance? Regardless of whether US jobs are maintained or lost, you are now allowing ships to carry passengers between US ports without being allowed to maintain safety and environmental requirements, since the USCG would no longer be able to enforce their stricter regulations on non-US flag ships. As you say, this would be similar to allowing Egypt Air to carry passengers from St. Louis to Seattle, and would not be subject to FAA regulations on domestic carriers.

[Cruisin' Chick]

About some eight years ago (give or take a couple of years), the president of NCLa (the arm of NCL that does the Hawaiian cruises) wanted to change the PVSA, but to make it more restrictive.:mad: His claim was that the RTs from the West Coast were unfair competition for the Pride ships (at one point, there were three). Of course, NCL had gotten the ships to be registered as American ships through some political loopholes (any ships to be registered as American are supposed to be built in American shipyards, but the Pride ships, as far as I know, were more refurbished on American soil).

 

What the NCL head wanted was to make the RTS too difficult to do through the changes. Many of us did write on the Congressional registry that the requested changes will harm west coast ports such as LA, SF, Seattle, and San Diego. There were also people concerned about a similar effect on east coast ports. The mayors of LA and the other cities that would be affected also sent in their protests.

 

It was then pointed out that if these changes were made, the Alaskan cruises that were round trips out of Seattle (and NCL was one line that had these) would also be negatively affected to the point that cruise lines might dropped these. So Colin Veitch started lobbying his two Senator friends (Inouye and Stevens) to make the changes about the Hawaiian cruises only. The then-governors of Hawaii (realizing that if the RTs from the west coast went away...there goes a lot of tourism $s) and California had a sit down with VP Cheney and got him involved in getting the changes tabled for an indefinite amount of time.

[chengkp75]

About some eight years ago (give or take a couple of years)' date=' the president of NCLa (the arm of NCL that does the Hawaiian cruises) wanted to change the PVSA, but to make it more restrictive.:mad: His claim was that the RTs from the West Coast were unfair competition for the Pride ships (at one point, there were three). Of course, NCL had gotten the ships to be registered as American ships through some political loopholes (any ships to be registered as American are supposed to be built in American shipyards, but the Pride ships, as far as I know, were more refurbished on American soil).The "loophole" was that the ship that would eventually become the Pride of America was being built in Pascagoula, but that the original owner, Hawaiian American Lines, went bankrupt, leaving the US taxpayers holding the mortgage guarantee for several hundreds of millions of dollars. No one except NCL wanted to bail out the US government, so a deal was struck to allow the company to flag in two ships, and to finish the POA overseas. The POA hull was available, if any other cruise line had wanted to take it over, even for foreign flag operation in the Caribbean, they could have. NCL was willing to take a hull that they hadn't designed, and committed to staffing 3 ships with thousands of US citizens to provide tax income to the US, and all of the normal roll over economic effect of having thousands of citizens spending money in the US. Also, all revenue from NCLA is taxable in the US, unlike most other lines.

 

What the NCL head wanted was to make the RTS too difficult to do through the changes. Many of us did write on the Congressional registry that the requested changes will harm west coast ports such as LA, SF, Seattle, and San Diego. There were also people concerned about a similar effect on east coast ports. The mayors of LA and the other cities that would be affected also sent in their protests.

 

It was then pointed out that if these changes were made, the Alaskan cruises that were round trips out of Seattle (and NCL was one line that had these) would also be negatively affected to the point that cruise lines might dropped these. So Colin Veitch started lobbying his two Senator friends (Inouye and Stevens) to make the changes about the Hawaiian cruises only. The then-governors of Hawaii (realizing that if the RTs from the west coast went away...there goes a lot of tourism $s) and California had a sit down with VP Cheney and got him involved in getting the changes tabled for an indefinite amount of time.

 

What the actual problem was, the foreign flag ships were calling at Ensenada on the return from Hawaii, at around midnite, not allowing guests to disembark at the port, staying in port only long enough to get the ship cleared at a foreign port and then sailing. When NCL approached CBP with this, CBP as well as NCL felt that this was a violation of the intent of the PVSA, if not the letter of the law. This is why the Hawaii itineraries from the West Coast are now required to list Ensenada as a port of call (it wasn't previously), and to stay long enough and allow passengers to disembark, as at any other port of call. I can't say who started the requirement (I'm sure if I looked at the Congressional Record it would say which lawmaker, but not who petitioned him/her) that the "majority" of port hours had to be in foreign ports, but that is what put the hold on the entire revision, but not on CBP's tightening of the interpretation as noted above.

 

As far as tourism dollars to Hawaii, the POA probably inputs as much to the local Hawaiian economy as two or three West Coast ships. The POA buys ALL of its food from either local providers or through local provisioners, having shipped all of it out to the islands. NONE of the West Coast ships buy food in the islands (perhaps a small amount of fruit and veg). The POA buys ALL of its fuel in Hawaii, while none of the WC ships do. Everything that a cruise ships needs to operate is handled by Hawaiian longshoremen and Hawaiian chandlers. And while the experiment to staff the ship with primarily Hawaiian crew did not work, there are still quite a few locals in the crew, while the foreign ships have none.

[lone_stranger]

I learned more about maritime law and why cruise ships have what I previously thought were bizarre itineraries than I ever expected. I thank the OP for the question that triggered all the discussion and all the other posters who provided background and legal information.

[Pam in CA]

What the actual problem was, the foreign flag ships were calling at Ensenada on the return from Hawaii, at around midnite, not allowing guests to disembark at the port, staying in port only long enough to get the ship cleared at a foreign port and then sailing. When NCL approached CBP with this, CBP as well as NCL felt that this was a violation of the intent of the PVSA, if not the letter of the law. This is why the Hawaii itineraries from the West Coast are now required to list Ensenada as a port of call (it wasn't previously), and to stay long enough and allow passengers to disembark, as at any other port of call.

The interesting thing is that at the time Sen. Inouye proposed the revision on behalf of NCLa (his wife was the godmother of one of the ships), both Princess and HAL had planned stops in Ensenada for hours, arriving late morning and sailing late afternoon. I remember disembarking in Ensenada, walking around for a while, and heading back to the ship and that was well before the proposal. I don't know which cruise lines arrived at midnight for a service call but it wasn't Princess or HAL. Both lines had modified their itineraries long before. And these were the two lines with the most LA > HI > LA cruises.

[chengkp75]

The interesting thing is that at the time Sen. Inouye proposed the revision on behalf of NCLa (his wife was the godmother of one of the ships), both Princess and HAL had planned stops in Ensenada for hours, arriving late morning and sailing late afternoon. I remember disembarking in Ensenada, walking around for a while, and heading back to the ship and that was well before the proposal. I don't know which cruise lines arrived at midnight for a service call but it wasn't Princess or HAL. Both lines had modified their itineraries long before. And these were the two lines with the most LA > HI > LA cruises.

 

Yes, as you say, HAL and Princess had modified their itineraries before the proposed revision to the PVSA. Their revisions were due to the CBP review of the itineraries (and some itineraries, don't recall which lines, did not even list Ensenada as a port of call in the advertising), and their revised findings on whether those cruises met the intent of the PVSA. I fully agree that the proposed revision to the PVSA was a mistake, and things should have been left as they stood after the CBP rulings.

 

Sen. Inouye was an unapologetic supporter of the US flag cruise ships, not because he favored NCL, but because he understood the economics of having a shipping industry based in the islands. One of the agreements that he made with NCL was to hire locals, and this was tried, unsuccessfully, on the Pride of Aloha when she first went to the islands. Unfortunately, the Hawaiians did not like being away from home for 3 months, even if it was only as far away as the next island. I can't say whether he was a good Senator for Hawaii, but like all politicians, he was looking out for his constituents.

 

Hopefully the OP is not upset with a slight hijacking of the thread to discuss the PVSA and Hawaii cruises. One of the many problems NCL faced with their US flag Hawaii operations was that after the other lines saw how much NCL was charging for their cabins (due to the higher operating costs), in the 3 years that there were 3 US flag ships in Hawaii, there was a 500% increase in foreign flag capacity going to Hawaii. No other segment of cruising has seen this kind of capacity increase before. Along with NCL's own overcapacity, this drove cabin prices to the point where NCL lost $172million in the last year before reflagging two ships and taking them away from Hawaii. And remember, NCL had already committed to the Hawaiian trade, when the Star was home ported out of Honolulu, and was required to run to Fanning Island in the Republic of Kiribati, 700 miles south to meet the requirements of the PVSA for a foreign flag vessel.

[SeagoingMom]

But WHY? Some more bureaucratic BS? Not being snarky I just don't understand.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

 

It's a US Law regulating foreign carriers (it's frequently mistakenly referred to as the Jones Act, but the Jones Act refers to shipping goods, not carrying passengers).

 

It's not just Princess, all foreign-flagged ships are subject to the law.

Protectionism, plain and simple.

[Pam in CA]

Protectionism, plain and simple.

Not quite that simple. "Protectionism" is the restriction of trade using tariffs, fees, and other means. The PVSA was enacted not so much to restrict trade but to protect US shipbuilding and shipping. A fine distinction, I know.

[hockeygal54]

Sounds like that law needs a little tweaking for cruise ships!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app