PVSA Violations That Didn't Occur!!!

[chengkp75]

Add one more very specific exception pertaining ONLY to missed embarkation on a cruise to the existing ones:

 

(a)Between Rochester and Alexandria Bay.—

Until passenger service is established by vessels of the United States between the port of Rochester, New York, and the port of Alexandria Bay, New York, the Secretary of Homeland Security may issue annually permits to Canadian passenger vessels to transport passengers between those ports. Canadian vessels holding such a permit are not subject to section 55103 of this title.

(b)Within Alaska or Between Alaska and Other Points in the United States.—Until the Secretary of Transportation determines that service by vessels of the United States is available to provide the transportation described in paragraph (1) or (2), sections 55102 and 55103 of this title do not apply to the transportation on Canadian vessels of—

(1) passengers between ports in southeastern Alaska; or

(2) passengers or merchandise between Hyder, Alaska, and other points in southeastern Alaska or in the United States outside Alaska.

 

Again - not a blanket permission - ONLY if the passenger missed their embarkation.

 

I do have a very good understanding of the purpose of this act and have no problem with it - I lived on Cape Cod for many years and am very familiar with the challenges faced by ferry lines.

 

And again, I say, use the OP's circumstance. He misses his embarkation and boards in Ketchikan to go to Whittier. How do you justify not allowing the AMH ferry to reflag to foreign, since they provide the exact same service? And all of the exemptions existing to the PVSA state that the exemption ends once US flag service is available, so since the AMH provides the service, there is no precedent for allowing an exemption to a cruise ship. This problem really only comes up with Alaska cruises due to the number of US ports.

[CapeCodCruiser]

And again, I say, use the OP's circumstance. He misses his embarkation and boards in Ketchikan to go to Whittier. How do you justify not allowing the AMH ferry to reflag to foreign, since they provide the exact same service? And all of the exemptions existing to the PVSA state that the exemption ends once US flag service is available, so since the AMH provides the service, there is no precedent for allowing an exemption to a cruise ship. This problem really only comes up with Alaska cruises due to the number of US ports.

 

The difference is the cruise ship's PURPOSE is not to ferry passengers between US ports along a coast as is the AMH ferry so embarking and disembarking at US ports would be the EXCEPTION not the intended purpose of the cruise.

[CantanaLobo]

And again, I say, use the OP's circumstance. He misses his embarkation and boards in Ketchikan to go to Whittier. How do you justify not allowing the AMH ferry to reflag to foreign, since they provide the exact same service? And all of the exemptions existing to the PVSA state that the exemption ends once US flag service is available, so since the AMH provides the service, there is no precedent for allowing an exemption to a cruise ship. This problem really only comes up with Alaska cruises due to the number of US ports.

Thinking out loud here, but how about defining Vancouver as a "distant foreign port" for purposes of the PVSA? Would that protect the ferry?

[chengkp75]

Thinking out loud here, but how about defining Vancouver as a "distant foreign port" for purposes of the PVSA? Would that protect the ferry?

 

First off, granting any exemption to the PVSA does not "protect" the ferry, it adds to its competition. Secondly, how do you define one particular port in North America as a distant port, and not the others?

 

Any kind of arbitrary limitation, like defining one port, or saying it is "just for those who have missed their embarkation" generally does not stand up in legal challenges.

 

And, its all moot, since CLIA shows no inclination to look for any changes to the PVSA. So, without that sponsorship, any effort is doomed.

[Cruisin' Chick]

I can understand, as a parent, the craziness in making sure everything needed is on you or in an accessible carry on before heading to the port or the airport. But it is necessary to double and triple check as it's not the airline's or cruise line's responsibility.

 

Fortunately, between my hubby and I, we would make sure we have the passports, personal IDs, any tickets before we go out the door. The one necessity that I didn't have on a cruise was a jacket (and the Baja cruises can get cool) the first time we were taking our young daughter on a cruise -- while I was trying to reduce down and redistribute some items from three bags to just two (jeez, my hubby just didn't get that most of them were toddler necessities), he put everything else in the car, or at least he claim, taking the girl's jacket, but not mine. And I didn't check for myself.:( Last time that happened.

 

I don't remember when I learned about the PVSA, but we fly into our embarkation city at least a day ahead of time, unless leaving from nearby San Pedro (L.A.). We always make sure to be back on board in every port, even if that means an hour or more ahead of the "back on board" time. these two rules for us will mean less trouble and cost for us (none of this having to fly to the next port and missing some of our cruise).

 

I do understand that missing the ship in Vancouver for a north bound cruise means that you lose your cruise. I'm guessing that many who are new to cruising (and even some who have been on some cruises) don't know this. Hopefully a good TA will let clients know about the law if it's important for the booked itinerary, but then many use online companies to book their cruise and won't get this info. Not sure what can be done to educate passengers about this. even putting it in the contract -- you know most don't read this.

 

I think in the long run, it's a tough lesson for the OP and it's not going to change based on whether other passengers got exempted (which as pointed out above, may have been because it wasn't a true violation).

[Ex techie]

My opinion is that the PVSA is outdated and not fit for purpose these days.

There are provisions for ships to sail without making a call at a distant foreign port due to circumstances beyond the cruise lines control, but yet no provision for a passenger who does not make an embarkation port due to circumstances beyond their control such as weather, mechanical or staffing issues with their car or airline.

It disregards the intent of the passenger.

 

It should not take big business to pay for congress to debate and intact changes that are in the publics best interest.

That is why US laws and regulations are getting so screwed up! Big businesses get to dictate what they want changed if they are willing to pay for it.

 

As for competition for the ferry's, the cost of an AMH trip and an Alaska cruise are vastly different. Even the accommodation with communal bathrooms. The cabins were obviously designed by the military and akin to a hostel.

 

I cannot see how on that route it would have any affect on the ferry service, or decrease it's purpose due to the ferry's ability to convey vehicles as well.

 

ex techie

[MicCanberra]

It may be an old law but it is still applicable although somewhat contravenes the free trade agreements that are now in place. I think the major problem I have with it is interpretation of the law by some TAs and or cruise lines.

[zqvol]

I think this whole discussion revolves around the fact that the OP missed a sailing out of Vancouver, and instead of flying to Ketchikan to try to get on the ship went home after learning about the PVSA. Others joined the ship, he found out and is irritated, and trying to find a reason to bring legal action. In other words, he missed up, and is trying to blame someone else for his error.

[SPacificbound]

It really amazes me when people argue with Chief. :confused:

[Shorex]

As for changing the PVSA, it tends to be almost as much political kryptonite as the Jones Act. Further, the last amendment to the PVSA, the exemption of Puerto Rico from the act (which allows Carnival to run its one way cruises to/from San Juan), took 10 years to be enacted.

 

Hello chengkp75, thank you for the information that the PVSA was amended to have an exemption for Puerto Rico. Once again the government did not send me the memo. :rolleyes: There is a thread in the Ask a Cruise Question forum called "Travel Docs Repositioning cruise from New York city to San Juan" that would benefit from your knowledge. The thrust of the thread is whether or not a passport is required for a NY to San Juan cruise. Most of us (including moi) went in a wrong direction, assuming that because it is not a closed loop cruise that a passport would be required. If you are so inclined, please contribute the benefit of your knowledge.

[Ex techie]

It may be an old law but it is still applicable although somewhat contravenes the free trade agreements that are now in place. I think the major problem I have with it is interpretation of the law by some TAs and or cruise lines.

 

The way I see it is Australia doesn't have the infrastructure, shipyards or expertise to build a large cruise ship that is financially viable to build.

Neither does the US. If they did, they would.

So why discriminate against foreign built cruise ships that "could" be put into service and employ Americans or in your case it would be Australians?

 

If your country is willing to sign up to an international agreed standard of ship operation and safety, but yet still allow your citizens to go aboard foreign flagged ships operating and sailing from your ports, but protest that US flagged ships are held to higher standards that are needed for safe transit, doesn't that implicate the authorities negligence against their citizens welfare and safety?

 

Or is it all about unionist fear mongering and protectionism, along with bureaucratic and unnecessarily overburdening inspection? (provides a good income for those involved in very regular inspections, regulation slight amendments and re-certification!)

 

I see nothing to suggest a US flagged ship is safer than a foreign flagged ship, and the Pride of America's incident report is not a short one, with many incidents of discharging (accidentally) untreated water/diesel fuel, also breaking mooring lines while docked, a lot of Noro outbreaks, a tuberculosis outbreak....

http://www.cruisejunkie.com/Events_by_NCL_America.html

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

It really amazes me when people argue with Chief. :confused:

 

Yep!

 

ex techie

[cml4958]

Hello chengkp75, thank you for the information that the PVSA was amended to have an exemption for Puerto Rico. Once again the government did not send me the memo. :rolleyes: There is a thread in the Ask a Cruise Question forum called "Travel Docs Repositioning cruise from New York city to San Juan" that would benefit from your knowledge. The thrust of the thread is whether or not a passport is required for a NY to San Juan cruise. Most of us (including moi) went in a wrong direction, assuming that because it is not a closed loop cruise that a passport would be required. If you are so inclined, please contribute the benefit of your knowledge.

 

We're talking about San Juan, Puerto Rico, right? All you need to travel to Puerto Rico is a birth certificate and photo id, assuming you're over the age of 18. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, along with American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Edited September 3, 2016 by cml4958

[CPT Trips]

You misunderstood my meaning. If you allow a foreign flag cruise ship to carry a passenger from one US port to another, how does the government deny that right to the Alaska Marine Highway? They would instantly re-flag to foreign, saving in operating costs, labor costs, etc. The AMH would have the same questions that the OP has: why can they do it, and not us. Followed closely by the commuter ferries from Conn. to NYC and Long Island. Followed closely by the Cape May ferries (DelMarVa to Virginia). Followed closely by the Cape Cod Steamship Authority.

 

Whoa! I don't want to argue with Chief, but I think he is incorrect. :eek:

 

Weren't the DelMarVa to VA ferries put out of business by the Chesapeke Bridge Tunnel opening in the mid-60s? Those ferries then moved one bay north -(Delaware Bay) and since then go between Cape May, NJ and Lewes, DE.

[MicCanberra]

The way I see it is Australia doesn't have the infrastructure, shipyards or expertise to build a large cruise ship that is financially viable to build.

Neither does the US. If they did, they would.

So why discriminate against foreign built cruise ships that "could" be put into service and employ Americans or in your case it would be Australians?

 

If your country is willing to sign up to an international agreed standard of ship operation and safety, but yet still allow your citizens to go aboard foreign flagged ships operating and sailing from your ports, but protest that US flagged ships are held to higher standards that are needed for safe transit, doesn't that implicate the authorities negligence against their citizens welfare and safety?

 

Or is it all about unionist fear mongering and protectionism, along with bureaucratic and unnecessarily overburdening inspection? (provides a good income for those involved in very regular inspections, regulation slight amendments and re-certification!)

 

I see nothing to suggest a US flagged ship is safer than a foreign flagged ship, and the Pride of America's incident report is not a short one, with many incidents of discharging (accidentally) untreated water/diesel fuel, also breaking mooring lines while docked, a lot of Noro outbreaks, a tuberculosis outbreak....

http://www.cruisejunkie.com/Events_by_NCL_America.html

 

ex techie

 

Sorry, but I thought the main aim of the PVSA was to protect the ship building and ownership of US Companies rather than maintaining the standards of passenger vessels.:confused:

[Shorex]

We're talking about San Juan, Puerto Rico, right? All you need to travel to Puerto Rico is a birth certificate and photo id, assuming you're over the age of 18. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, along with American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

Really? I do know the political status of the territories of the United States. The question at hand is whether the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative applies to a cruise from one US port to a different US port without.....oh, never mind.

[Ex techie]

Sorry, but I thought the main aim of the PVSA was to protect the ship building and ownership of US Companies rather than maintaining the standards of passenger vessels.:confused:

 

Yes.

They must be built in the US (the Pride of America being an exception through congress), owned by a US company, employ a certain percentage of US citizens and or US green card citizens in order to be flagged as I believe.

 

Neither the US or Australia in your case can produce a marketable, cost effective and profitable large scale cruise ship to market.

From my knowledge of this, only Germany, Finland, Italy, France, Korea and China can produce vessels of this size and quality with existing ship yards and infrastructure.

 

Stoping foreign built ships being flagged at US or Australian does not help the yard workers. They still have no jobs.

Maybe they would have more work in maintenance going back to their yard if they were built there, but labor disputes and higher pay (a lot higher pay), working on government contracts that can overrun and exceed budgets, keep it a closed shop for the younger generation.

 

ex techie

[chengkp75]

An interesting thread, I too have wondered why a one cruise may fall under the PVSA and yet if you do a B2B it shouldn't apply but in some cases it does and in others it doesn't.

i.e I could cruise from Ensenada (really San Diego) to Honolulu and onto Sydney Australia as a B2B but wasn't allowed to sail from Vancouver to san Diego and then onto Honolulu and Sydney as a B2B. Yet people were allowed to sail from Vancouver to Honolulu as a B2B. Very puzzling.

 

Mic;

 

I believe you were given bad information regarding your Vancouver to Sydney trip. With a trip that starts in a foreign port, and ends in a foreign port, the PVSA never comes into play. Even if the San Diego/Ensenada shuttle bus was used, you would have been from Vancouver to San Diego (legal), and then Ensenada to Honolulu (legal).

[chengkp75]

My opinion is that the PVSA is outdated and not fit for purpose these days.

There are provisions for ships to sail without making a call at a distant foreign port due to circumstances beyond the cruise lines control, but yet no provision for a passenger who does not make an embarkation port due to circumstances beyond their control such as weather, mechanical or staffing issues with their car or airline.

It disregards the intent of the passenger.

 

It should not take big business to pay for congress to debate and intact changes that are in the publics best interest.

That is why US laws and regulations are getting so screwed up! Big businesses get to dictate what they want changed if they are willing to pay for it.

 

As for competition for the ferry's, the cost of an AMH trip and an Alaska cruise are vastly different. Even the accommodation with communal bathrooms. The cabins were obviously designed by the military and akin to a hostel.

 

I cannot see how on that route it would have any affect on the ferry service, or decrease it's purpose due to the ferry's ability to convey vehicles as well.

 

ex techie

 

Again, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is direct competition between the cruise lines and the ferry lines. That is not important. What is important is that one company is allowed to transport passengers on foreign flag ships, while another is not. It doesn't matter whether they are competing for the same customers or not, one is allowed to do something the other isn't. That is what would lead the ferry to sue for relief and be entitled to flag foreign and reduce their operating costs.

[chengkp75]

I think this whole discussion revolves around the fact that the OP missed a sailing out of Vancouver, and instead of flying to Ketchikan to try to get on the ship went home after learning about the PVSA. Others joined the ship, he found out and is irritated, and trying to find a reason to bring legal action. In other words, he missed up, and is trying to blame someone else for his error.

 

While I agree nearly completely with you, I still say that since CBP has declared that there were no violations (supplied by the OP in his post), that there are more facts out there that we haven't heard. This is not a case of someone boarding in violation, the cruise line paying the fine, and not passing it to the passenger or being reimbursed, this is the government agency that is responsible for determining whether violations occurred saying that there were no violations.

[chengkp75]

Whoa! I don't want to argue with Chief, but I think he is incorrect. :eek:

 

Weren't the DelMarVa to VA ferries put out of business by the Chesapeke Bridge Tunnel opening in the mid-60s? Those ferries then moved one bay north -(Delaware Bay) and since then go between Cape May, NJ and Lewes, DE.

 

Yeah, just dating myself.

[sparks1093]

We're talking about San Juan, Puerto Rico, right? All you need to travel to Puerto Rico is a birth certificate and photo id, assuming you're over the age of 18. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, along with American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

For a closed loop cruise this is correct, but for an open jaw sailing this would be insufficient under the current regulations. (And if I were to fly to Puerto Rico for a visit I would only need a photo ID, wouldn't need the birth certificate at all.)

[chengkp75]

The way I see it is Australia doesn't have the infrastructure, shipyards or expertise to build a large cruise ship that is financially viable to build.

Neither does the US. If they did, they would.

So why discriminate against foreign built cruise ships that "could" be put into service and employ Americans or in your case it would be Australians?

 

Do you really think that if foreign built cruise ships were allowed to be flagged US and given a PVSA permit, that the cruise lines would line up to do so? Even I'm not that naive. The US built clause in the PVSA is not the major stumbling block.

 

If your country is willing to sign up to an international agreed standard of ship operation and safety, but yet still allow your citizens to go aboard foreign flagged ships operating and sailing from your ports, but protest that US flagged ships are held to higher standards that are needed for safe transit, doesn't that implicate the authorities negligence against their citizens welfare and safety?

 

This is kind of my point all along, in my quixotic crusade for US flag cruise ships. US passengers expect that US laws protect them on foreign flag cruise ships, and then are upset when they find out that those laws end at the gangway. But until passengers vote with their wallets, nothing will change.

 

Or is it all about unionist fear mongering and protectionism, along with bureaucratic and unnecessarily overburdening inspection? (provides a good income for those involved in very regular inspections, regulation slight amendments and re-certification!)

 

"Unionist fear mongering", I like that. Maritime unions in the US are some of the weakest unions out there. The unions were clamoring for the jobs on NCL's ships so badly that the contracts are some of the worst in the industry. And with regards to the vast majority of jobs represented in the PVSA and Jones Act fleets, 90% of them are non-union jobs.

 

As for "overburdening regulation", you can see it this way, I see it that US flag ships have far lower P&I insurance rates than ships of other flags, and US officers command a premium when hired aboard foreign flag ships due to their training.

 

I see nothing to suggest a US flagged ship is safer than a foreign flagged ship, and the Pride of America's incident report is not a short one, with many incidents of discharging (accidentally) untreated water/diesel fuel, also breaking mooring lines while docked, a lot of Noro outbreaks, a tuberculosis outbreak....

http://www.cruisejunkie.com/Events_by_NCL_America.html

 

ex techie

 

And I expected better of you than to use cruisejunkie, but every ship has a long "record" according to him.

[ytwater]

This was posted to the wrong thread so I erased it

Edited September 3, 2016 by ytwater
Posted in wrong thread

[MicCanberra]

Mic;

 

I believe you were given bad information regarding your Vancouver to Sydney trip. With a trip that starts in a foreign port, and ends in a foreign port, the PVSA never comes into play. Even if the San Diego/Ensenada shuttle bus was used, you would have been from Vancouver to San Diego (legal), and then Ensenada to Honolulu (legal).

 

That was my understanding as well, however, reality was different, first the TA said no, then the cruise line, either way, we had to drop the first leg from our plans.:(