Can an expert please weigh in on "technical stop"

[MattInFLL]

Under the new maritime laws (and former ones) cruises to nowhere and those round trips visiting a US port have to make at least a technical stop in a foreign port.

 

Ensenada has been one of the most common. Anyone done it and remember if they tied up to the dock or just sort of sat their for an hour ?

 

Our 3/6 cruise has a technical stop in Halifax for an hour. We are not allowed to get off the ship. But we are wondering if we will tie up and then invite some locals to at least wave us off. :)

 

Thanks.

[cruisenfever]

Under the new maritime laws (and former ones) cruises to nowhere and those round trips visiting a US port have to make at least a technical stop in a foreign port.

 

Ensenada has been one of the most common. Anyone done it and remember if they tied up to the dock or just sort of sat their for an hour ?

 

Our 3/6 cruise has a technical stop in Halifax for an hour. We are not allowed to get off the ship. But we are wondering if we will tie up and then invite some locals to at least wave us off. :)

 

Thanks.

 

When we did R/T Hawaii out of San Diego, Ensenada was our technical stop on the way back and we usually arrived at 10PM, docked and departed at midnight. We were not allowed off.

Edited February 16, 2016 by cruisenfever

[cb at sea]

Isn't that the most ridiculous thing? Who writes these laws????

[bradpole]

Isn't that the most ridiculous thing? Who writes these laws????

 

I'm sure at one time made it made sense to prevent foreign ships to carrying passengers between US ports without a stop in a distant foreign country. Sadly that time has passed and the law should be changed. I'm sure someone in the US government thinks they are protecting jobs by preventing the cruises to nowhere, but what they don't realize is they are hurting jobs in my humble opinion. Think about the number of people required on land to turn the ship around even for a one night cruise. Security staff, check in agents, longshoremen, parking attendants, cab drivers, etc... that won't be working the addition ship turn around days.

 

Just my 2 cents worth....

[DonnaK]

I thought I read something about the technical stop on a CTN being necessary because of the work-Visas of the employees onboard. I don't remember the exact details, but something about their ability to work in the USA (if the CTN doesn't have a foreign stop, then they are working only in the USA on that cruise) and also something about tax implications for the workers.

 

Perhaps someone can clarify and fill in the details that I am missing.

[markeb]

I thought I read something about the technical stop on a CTN being necessary because of the work-Visas of the employees onboard. I don't remember the exact details, but something about their ability to work in the USA (if the CTN doesn't have a foreign stop, then they are working only in the USA on that cruise) and also something about tax implications for the workers.

 

Perhaps someone can clarify and fill in the details that I am missing.

 

A little bit of apples and oranges here. I more or less understand the apples; the oranges are based on fuzzy memory:

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 "essentially" prohibits foreign flagged carriers from transporting passengers between two US ports. A "cruise to nowhere" doesn't transport passengers between two US ports, so it doesn't violate the PVSA. A vessel that transports passengers between two US ports must make a stop at a "distant" foreign port. (Wikipedia has a very nice description of the PVSA.)

 

The oranges part of this is that recent rulings from I believe CBP and/or IRS have been that a cruise ship that doesn't make a foreign port call, even if a foreign flagged vessel, must comply with US tax and I believe labor laws, so work visas, income tax, etc. (That's the part I only vaguely recall.) That WOULD apply to a CTN.

 

To the OP, I've not done that, and you probably have to dig into the CFR for the actual rules of a technical stop; the CFR would contain the agency rules implementing the law. Experience from CC posters would almost certainly be easier than finding the right section of the CFR!

[SharkCruiser24]

Aircraft do this as well but for different reasons. We get tech stops daily during the summertime due to weather diversions. With airplane tech stops passengers are not allowed off the aircraft either. Most of these stops would require clearing customs and the planes are usually on the ground for only an hour, not worth clearing customs. That being said aircraft tech stops are unscheduled, and cruise ship stops are scheduled. Interesting.

[DonnaK]

A little bit of apples and oranges here. I more or less understand the apples; the oranges are based on fuzzy memory:

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 "essentially" prohibits foreign flagged carriers from transporting passengers between two US ports. A "cruise to nowhere" doesn't transport passengers between two US ports, so it doesn't violate the PVSA. A vessel that transports passengers between two US ports must make a stop at a "distant" foreign port. (Wikipedia has a very nice description of the PVSA.)

 

The oranges part of this is that recent rulings from I believe CBP and/or IRS have been that a cruise ship that doesn't make a foreign port call, even if a foreign flagged vessel, must comply with US tax and I believe labor laws, so work visas, income tax, etc. (That's the part I only vaguely recall.) That WOULD apply to a CTN.

 

To the OP, I've not done that, and you probably have to dig into the CFR for the actual rules of a technical stop; the CFR would contain the agency rules implementing the law. Experience from CC posters would almost certainly be easier than finding the right section of the CFR!

 

The OP is on the same future sailing as I am, a CTN on Anthem, which has the technical stop in Halifax. That's the "oranges" part I was replying to! :)

[markeb]

The OP is on the same future sailing as I am, a CTN on Anthem, which has the technical stop in Halifax. That's the "oranges" part I was replying to! :)

 

Ah! The replies were heading down the PVSA, then you took a turn at Albuquerque, but you were actually turning back to the OP! So now you're into the tax code to figure out what a technical stop has to be. Good luck with that! :)

[Eng23]

I thought I read something about the technical stop on a CTN being necessary because of the work-Visas of the employees onboard. I don't remember the exact details, but something about their ability to work in the USA (if the CTN doesn't have a foreign stop, then they are working only in the USA on that cruise) and also something about tax implications for the workers.

 

Perhaps someone can clarify and fill in the details that I am missing.

 

That's exactly how I understand it too Donna.

[bob brown]

I'm sure at one time made it made sense to prevent foreign ships to carrying passengers between US ports without a stop in a distant foreign country. Sadly that time has passed and the law should be changed. I'm sure someone in the US government thinks they are protecting jobs by preventing the cruises to nowhere, but what they don't realize is they are hurting jobs in my humble opinion. Think about the number of people required on land to turn the ship around even for a one night cruise. Security staff, check in agents, longshoremen, parking attendants, cab drivers, etc... that won't be working the addition ship turn around days.

 

Just my 2 cents worth....

 

Whether this is the issue or the labor issue mentioned, whatever, the net effect is the same....eliminating the 'cruises to nowhere' hurts everyone involved, and helps no one. The US is not going to get US registered ships built, and operated to fill this gap...

 

As for airline technical stops...those I believe were mainly for refueling westbound transoceanic flights that in early days could not make it nonstop, as they usually could eastbound (with the wind). That put places like Gander, Newfoundland on the map....

Usually the airline would handle no traffic at these stops. Sometimes they also changed crews at them....

 

I am somewhat surprised that RCI can 'circumvent' the restriction by sailing into and out of Halifax, as well as the cruises that allegedly do the same at Ensenada....

IIRC, a little while back, NCL, which does currently have the one US registered ship (Pride of America), complained about the other lines foreign registered ships getting around the PVSA by making these 'technical stops' at Ensenada...the way I understood the settlement at the time, the other lines agreed that they would at least let the passengers get off for a few hours, if they desired, before continuing on, in order to be in compliance....:confused:

[FLACRUISER99]

Isn't that the most ridiculous thing? Who writes these laws????

Lawyers

[DonnaK]

That's exactly how I understand it too Donna.

I found the reference regarding CTN: http://www.cruisecritic.com/v-5/news/news.cfm?ID=6402

 

If you read the comments to the article, someone explains that it pertains to the work Visas of the crew.

[Keith1010]

Yes, this is the law.

 

Keith

[Loyal2RCCL]

To answer the OP's question.. the ship will actually dock. The stop could be 1-2 hrs and there is paperwork that needs to be completed with the local authorities even though no guests are allowed to disembark.

[chengkp75]

As for the old Ensenada "technical stops", they are no longer allowed, as they violate the "intent" if not the "letter" of the PVSA, according to CBP. This was the old midnight one hour stop just to clear documentation. Now, West Coast to Hawaii cruises need to advertise Ensenada as a port of call, and allow disembarkation at that port, to meet the PVSA.

 

Your "technical stop" in Halifax is not to meet PVSA requirements, but as others have said, to meet CBP and State department rules on foreign crew. Crew come to work on "crew visas", which do not allow unlimited work in the US. With cruises to nowhere, an operator in Miami was doing casino cruises to nowhere using foreign crew exclusively (they didn't do any other cruises). This meant that the crew were essentially working full time in the US, without having to get a work visa, which is different than a crew visa.

 

Yes, the ship will dock, and the Canadian Customs and Immigration will clear the ship into port, and out of port at the same time, and then the ship will leave.

 

To those who believe the PVSA applies only to cruise ships, please note that it was passed almost 100 years before the first cruise ship existed. If repealed, it would allow not only cruise ships, but every ferry, commuter boat, sightseeing boat, whale watching boat, casino boat, and charter fishing vessel to bypass US labor, tax, environmental, accessibility, and safety law. Which ships hit the Oakland Bay Bridge, which ships hit the New Orleans Riverwalk? Foreign flag ships. Do we really want these ships, with little oversight, operating full time in US waters?

 

I know OP doesn't want this to become a PVSA thread, but those are my feelings when it comes to the PVSA and passenger safety.

[mo&fran]

a little off of the CTN question, is there no reason congress could not amend PVSA to exempt cruises to Hawaii like it does to Puerto Rico?

[MattInFLL]

Thanks Cheng. Yes I really only did want to know if we actually tied up for that hour or so. :).

 

Too bad we won't get the bag pipers and welcoming committee that Halifax usually greets new ships with.

[chengkp75]

a little off of the CTN question, is there no reason congress could not amend PVSA to exempt cruises to Hawaii like it does to Puerto Rico?

 

The exemption given to passenger services for Puerto Rico is only until there is a viable US flag service available, and then the foreign flag ships will no longer be able to do it. This same exemption is given to a couple of Canadian operations on the Great Lakes, with the same proviso that when a US service is available the exemption ends.

[mo&fran]

The exemption given to passenger services for Puerto Rico is only until there is a viable US flag service available, and then the foreign flag ships will no longer be able to do it. This same exemption is given to a couple of Canadian operations on the Great Lakes, with the same proviso that when a US service is available the exemption ends.

 

Given Norwegian experience without even trying to go to the mainland, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would be in this market anytime soon.

Why not let the big lines have at it.

[chengkp75]

Given Norwegian experience without even trying to go to the mainland, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would be in this market anytime soon.

Why not let the big lines have at it.

 

The exemption for Puerto Rico was driven by the cruise industry itself, starting in the '80's, with final passage in 2003, and it took another 10+ years before any line started regular one way cruises to/from Puerto Rico. If the cruise industry felt the need for a waiver of the PVSA to Hawaii, they could try for it, but at what cost, and do they feel it is worth it? Apparently not. By flooding the market with cruises from Vancouver and round trip WC cruises, they succeeded in driving NCL's fleet from 3 to 1 by forcing cabin fares lower and lower, and NCL's market share lower, so they probably feel that the market demographic either wants the longer round trip, or the one way from Vancouver.

 

NCL's US flag ships were banned from any trade other than inter-island Hawaii by the special legislation, except when proceeding to/from a drydock, so there was never any thought of a US flag operation between the WC and Hawaii. Not sure whether the market forces available to a US flag operation as a monopolistic market on WC to Hawaii cruises would be able to offset the availability of using Vancouver as home port.