Question about PSVA act (AKA Jones act)

[Kingofwylietx]

In the case of a medical emergency, does the ship head to the nearest port, or do they have to go to nearest non-US port to comply w/ the PVSA. Personally, I'd rather be dropped off on an island that's a US territory for medical needs.

 

I don't think PVSA is part of the conversation during a medical emergency. If you are near the US, then the Coast Guard will probably pick you up via helicopter (rather than the ship take you to a port).

 

You (not the ship) may run afoul of the PVSA due to this, but surely you'd rather be alive than save the tiny fine. The ship won't change its final destination because of your illness, so the ship won't be in violation.

 

I won't overcomplicate it. I do love these conversations, mostly because of all the scenarios that people come up with! Once you understand the PVSA, it isn't complicated...it's actually very simple. It's just that a couple of small restrictions make it seem that way.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Kingofwylietx

[BillB48]

I don't think PVSA is part of the conversation during a medical emergency. If you are near the US, then the Coast Guard will probably pick you up via helicopter (rather than the ship take you to a port).

 

You (not the ship) may run afoul of the PVSA due to this, but surely you'd rather be alive than save the tiny fine. The ship won't change its final destination because of your illness, so the ship won't be in violation.

 

I won't overcomplicate it.

 

Actually you personally won't run amuck with the PVSA, just the ship is held accountable for the violation. If you are disembarked at another US port for medical reasons without going through all the chutes and ladders of a distant foreign port stop, the fine against the vessel in this case is frequently waived.

 

If for some non emergency reasons you cause the vessel to be in violation of the PVSA as in not making back to the ship at a US port of call, then the cruise line can legally charge you the cost of the fine.

Edited April 7, 2016 by BillB48

[robtulipe]

Very interesting!

 

Did we even know of tectonic plates in 1886?

 

No, not according to the site below but it was known that these islands were on the SA continental shelf so that's likely why they were included as part of that continent.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

[knittinggirl]

Once you understand the PVSA, it isn't complicated...it's actually very simple. It's just that a couple of small restrictions make it seem that way.

I wouldn't call having to go out of your way to Aruba small.

 

Then there's the Princess engine breakdown last year that caused them to miss all but one Hawaii ports. That's because the PVSA forced them to go out of their way to Ensenada. Just beautiful, you book a trip to Hawaii and see Mexico instead. If I wanted to see Mexico, I'd take a weekend trip and cross the border in El Paso.

[Clarea]

Just a wild guess that the addition of the ABC islands to the acceptable list of distant foreign ports had more to do with politics than tectonic plates.

[knittinggirl]

Just a wild guess that the addition of the ABC islands to the acceptable list of distant foreign ports had more to do with politics than tectonic plates.

Maybe an influential politician in 1886 had his summer home there.

[Kingofwylietx]

I wouldn't call having to go out of your way to Aruba small.

 

Who wouldn't want to go to Aruba? :p

[Cuizer2]

I'm drafting a letter to my congressman like someone in this thread suggested.

 

Just to get my facts straight, I'm trying come up w/ arguments to repeal the law.

 

In the case of a medical emergency, does the ship head to the nearest port, or do they have to go to nearest non-US port to comply w/ the PVSA. Personally, I'd rather be dropped off on an island that's a US territory for medical needs.

 

With a medical emergency the ship goes to the nearest port.

[Cuizer2]

once you understand the pvsa, it isn't complicated...it's actually very simple. It's just that a couple of small restrictions make it seem that way.

 

Bingo!!!

Edited April 7, 2016 by Cuizer2

[Cuizer2]

Then there's the Princess engine breakdown last year that caused them to miss all but one Hawaii ports. That's because the PVSA forced them to go out of their way to Ensenada. Just beautiful, you book a trip to Hawaii and see Mexico instead. If I wanted to see Mexico, I'd take a weekend trip and cross the border in El Paso.

 

But then you wouldn't be on the Pacific side of Mexico. :(

[Cuizer2]

Who wouldn't want to go to Aruba? :p

 

Natalee Holloway's family.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Cuizer2

[knittinggirl]

I was trying to figure out why Celebrity skipped Cococay on our Panama Canal cruise, but noticed they HAD to visit Curacao instead to make it PVSA compliant.

 

Still don't know if Celebrity ships even are allowed to visit Cococay or if Celebrity has their own private island.

[Clarea]

I was trying to figure out why Celebrity skipped Cococay on our Panama Canal cruise, but noticed they HAD to visit Curacao instead to make it PVSA compliant.

 

Still don't know if Celebrity ships even are allowed to visit Cococay or if Celebrity has their own private island.

Celebrity ships have visited Coco Cay in the past. Even Carnival ships have visited Coco Cay.

Edited April 7, 2016 by clarea

[S.S.Oceanlover]

I was trying to figure out why Celebrity skipped Cococay on our Panama Canal cruise, but noticed they HAD to visit Curacao instead to make it PVSA compliant.

 

Still don't know if Celebrity ships even are allowed to visit Cococay or if Celebrity has their own private island.

 

I don't see a Celebrity ship listed in your past cruises as going to the Panama Canal? I see a HAL ship? :confused::confused::confused:

[Cuizer2]

I don't see a Celebrity ship listed in your past cruises as going to the Panama Canal? I see a HAL ship? :confused::confused::confused:

 

Those dam ships!

[knittinggirl]

I don't see a Celebrity ship listed in your past cruises as going to the Panama Canal? I see a HAL ship? :confused::confused::confused:

We have a celebrity panama canal booked.

[thinfool]

I'm drafting a letter to my congressman like someone in this thread suggested.

 

Just to get my facts straight, I'm trying come up w/ arguments to repeal the law.

 

In the case of a medical emergency, does the ship head to the nearest port, or do they have to go to nearest non-US port to comply w/ the PVSA. Personally, I'd rather be dropped off on an island that's a US territory for medical needs.

 

I suggest that you spend more time getting the whole picture of the PVSA rather than the narrow portion of it that applies to cruise ships.

 

cheng has several posts detailing the unpleasant outcome that would result if it was repealed.

 

Nor would I waste my time with the letter. The last time the PVSA was modified, stricter policies were put in place.

[mollyeilis]

Once you understand the PVSA, it isn't complicated...it's actually very simple. It's just that a couple of small restrictions make it seem that way.

 

I've been reading about it for the whole time I've been on CC and I have yet to find it simple. I am not a lawyer b/c I get lost in the legalese, and that's how it reads. So it's good to get questions answered. :)

 

That's correct. If the two cruises on the same ship makes up an illegal cruise, then it isn't allowed. If you can change ships it would be okay.

 

No, it would require a different date of disembarkation and embarkation to count as a break.

 

Thanks so much!

[CruisesOnMyMind]

So in boggling my mind reading this, I am surmising this B3B itinerary will be legal on the Rhapsody fall 2017.

 

1- New Jersey to Quebec

2- Quebec to New Jersey

3- New Jersey to Tampa ( ABC's, Grand Cayman + more)

 

Just verifying with those in the know.:)

[Clarea]

So in boggling my mind reading this, I am surmising this B3B itinerary will be legal on the Rhapsody fall 2017.

 

1- New Jersey to Quebec

2- Quebec to New Jersey

3- New Jersey to Tampa ( ABC's, Grand Cayman + more)

 

Just verifying with those in the know.:)

Legal because you are visiting a distant foreign port (ABC).

[CruisesOnMyMind]

Legal because you are visiting a distant foreign port (ABC).

 

Thanks Bob for the quick reply....now would the 1st 2 legs only be legal. NJ - Que, Que - NJ?

[Clarea]

Thanks Bob for the quick reply....now would the 1st 2 legs only be legal. NJ - Que, Que - NJ?

Yes, because you would be starting and ending at the same US port, and you would have visited a foreign port in Canada. If you start and end in the same US port, the foreign port does not have to be distant.

Edited May 17, 2016 by clarea

[PC2]

Yes, because you would be starting and ending at the same US port, and you would have visited a foreign port in Canada. If you start and end in the same US port, the foreign port does not have to be distant.

 

 

Sounds good, but tell that to Royal Caribbean. I booked cruises 1&2 and 1,2&3 when we were just on the Anthem. The NC rep said that cruises 1&2 could not be booked as consecutive cruises. I called Royal when we got home on Saturday. The rep thought that the two cruises would be fine but checked with his supervisor who checked with resolutions and came back and said that the two cruises violated the act. I mentioned the Serenade cruise last year but the only thing different was the overnight in Quebec on the second cruise and he said that made a difference. The Bayonne to Quebec and then Quebec to Florida last year violated the act also. I wonder if the January 1st change that doesn't allow cruises to nowhere had a clause that covers these cruises and that is another reason why they are saying they are not allowed.

 

Since these cruises are not until next year, I am not worried but I would like to know.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[Clarea]

Sounds good, but tell that to Royal Caribbean. I booked cruises 1&2 and 1,2&3 when we were just on the Anthem. The NC rep said that cruises 1&2 could not be booked as consecutive cruises. I called Royal when we got home on Saturday. The rep thought that the two cruises would be fine but checked with his supervisor who checked with resolutions and came back and said that the two cruises violated the act. I mentioned the Serenade cruise last year but the only thing different was the overnight in Quebec on the second cruise and he said that made a difference. The Bayonne to Quebec and then Quebec to Florida last year violated the act also. I wonder if the January 1st change that doesn't allow cruises to nowhere had a clause that covers these cruises and that is another reason why they are saying they are not allowed.

 

Since these cruises are not until next year, I am not worried but I would like to know.

 

Did this cruise visit one of the ABC islands or someplace else in South America? If not, then it would have been illegal.

[Merion_Mom]

Last year's Serenade repo did NOT visit any of the ABC islands. That is the reason that you could not leave from Bayonne and end in Fort Lauderdale.

 

You absolutely CAN do Rhapsody Bayonne to Quebec then Quebec to Bayonne. Don't give up that cruise.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Merion_Mom