PVSA Violations That Didn't Occur!!!

[FredT]

Ok... Little by little the situation is getting clearer....

 

The OP lost his docs... The government has said this is NOT a reason to be able to board in the next stop.

 

The other 14 missed their boarding due to circumstances outside their control. The government has said this IS an acceptable reason for boarding nest stop.

 

Had the OP lied and said the airline had been delayed/canceled, he would have been OK.

 

If the cruise line had lied to the government he would have been OK.

 

So in a nutshell, the OP is upset that the cruise line was not willing to lie to the government..... (Or tell the OP HOW to get around the law by lying.....)

Edited September 4, 2016 by FredT

[CapeCodCruiser]

As BruceMuzz pointed out the cruise line can call CBP and ask if the PVSA would be waived in a certain passenger's circumstances that CBP will obviously exercise that discretion. They evidently did so for those passengers that missed embarkation through no fault of their own (and their situation is able to be verified by a third party. I don't know if the cruise line even bothered to call CBP in the OP's circumstance because they would undoubtedly know that CBP wouldn't waive the fine because he missed embarkation due to circumstances completely within his control.

 

I get that they would not waive the fine but can CBP deny his boarding even if he PAYS the fine?

 

Who makes that determination?

[Shmoo here]

I get that they would not waive the fine but can CBP deny his boarding even if he PAYS the fine?

 

Who makes that determination?

 

The issue is that the fine is assessed against the cruise lines. The cruise line is within it's rights to then pass that fine onto the passenger.

 

It's not just a case of "I'll pay the fine, now let me board." The fine isn't assessed until the crime happens. So, no way of pre-paying it. The cruise line will deny boarding if it appears that by allowing the boarding will break the law.

 

They will not willfully allow someone to break the law. Doing so will subject them to other penalties, including being banned from porting in X number of ports for X amount of time, or permanently banned.

 

I doubt that the cruise line wants to take that risk.

[navybankerteacher]

I get that they would not waive the fine but can CBP deny his boarding even if he PAYS the fine?

 

Who makes that determination?

 

Fines exist as a means of penalizing law breakers, not as an optional alternative to complying with the law.

 

Your suggestion would be similar to paying $100 (or whatever the fine was) for permission to driving 80 mph in a 35 mph zone.

 

The PVSA (regardless of whether it is, or ever was, effective) exists to protect US shipbuilders and operators ---- and not to permit those who can afford it to pay an extra fee to ignore it.

[sparks1093]

Fines exist as a means of penalizing law breakers, not as an optional alternative to complying with the law.

 

Your suggestion would be similar to paying $100 (or whatever the fine was) for permission to driving 80 mph in a 35 mph zone.

 

The PVSA (regardless of whether it is, or ever was, effective) exists to protect US shipbuilders and operators ---- and not to permit those who can afford it to pay an extra fee to ignore it.

 

This exactly.

[sparks1093]

Not.., I was making a joke to chengkp75. I certainly wasn't trying to show disrespect towards him. I appreciate his comments.

 

I will try to explain everything in chronological details.

 

Two friends and I planned this trip together, 7 days sailing and 6 around Denali.

 

After arriving at the Indianapolis airport to embark the ship, I realized that I had left my passport and drivers ID at home. I couldn't board the airline. I tried calling the en route emegency number to get advice. As I was waiting for my documents to arrive, I learned from a solo traveler of flight problems with another carrier and how it was going to impact him getting to Vancouver. While waiting a couple of hours for my documents to arrive, I tried calling the emergency travel number every 15 minutes (see previous post for details concerning emergency number system). Once I had my docs and still hadn't been advised as to what to do, I made a logical decision to fly to Ketchikan, the next port of call; completely unaware of the PVSA.

 

After driving home, I finally talked to a cruise rep. That is when it was explained that because I caused the problem, I would be denied boarding in Ketchikan or any another other ship itinerary port of call. During this conversation, the rep didn't say that if it was an airline problem I would have been able to board in Ketchikan; I would learn of this later.

 

During this same conversation, I was told that I could join my friends and the land portion of my cruise tour in Anchorage. A train from Whittier would stop in Anchorage to allow passenger boarding. In order to recoup a part of my trip, I flew from Indianapolis to Anchorage a week later. Upon my return, I learned the details about the en route emergency system flaws and the PVSA.

 

On the train going from Anchorage to Mt Denali, I met up with my friends. I explained in detail what had happen and the first words from my mouth were, "You have to meet this couple that is doing the land trip also." They overheard these two plus a couple they were doing the cruise portion together talking about how they missed embarkation due to a flight problem in Indianapolis and were permitted to board in Ketchikan without any insurance or knowledge of any PVSA violation. I talked with the couple during a couple of bus tours during the land trip. That is how I learned of their details and the couple they traveled with during the cruise.

 

I'm not clairvoyant or have "almost" great karma. I researched my facts and noted conversations that I had with cruise reps. I made a FOIA to CBP and an agent has taken a personal interest in this situation. I am waiting to hear more from him after he returns from a personal vacation.

 

I will said it again. This was my own doing; a studip, absent-minded mistake. I am NOT going to attempt any reimbursement from or suit against the cruiseline. Maybe, I haven't thought seriously about it, a class action suit might get movement towards a re-write of the 100+ year old PVSA). I would like to get some explanations of how they can choose to treat customers so perversely, knowing that they won't admit to anything. Apparently, PVSA violations are rare (I think chengkp75 said this) and fines more so. I would like to hear from CBP what discretionary steps they have with documenting PVSA violations and exactly how do they get determined.

 

Finally, the purpose for my original post here at CC, I wanted to let potential cruisers to completely understand what can happen on this particular type of cruise should embarkation be missed and that the cause will determine the type of customer service the cruise line will provide to you.

 

Any other questions NotEn...? I will be glad to answer them.

 

Yes, it is good for this type of information to be out there so people are aware of the ramifications. As for wanting an explanation from CBP about their internal processes I wish you luck but I believe because you are asking for internal decision making information CBP is likely to refuse to provide it.

[SnowshoeCat]

I'm wondering if maybe part of the problem was the OP went ahead and bought the tickets to Ketchikan prior to getting through to the cruise rep? This might make it sound suspicious to the cruise line.

 

Did the other people buy their plane tickets through the cruise line? (I may have missed that - it's kind of hard to follow)

[CapeCodCruiser]

Fines exist as a means of penalizing law breakers, not as an optional alternative to complying with the law.

 

Your suggestion would be similar to paying $100 (or whatever the fine was) for permission to driving 80 mph in a 35 mph zone.

 

The PVSA (regardless of whether it is, or ever was, effective) exists to protect US shipbuilders and operators ---- and not to permit those who can afford it to pay an extra fee to ignore it.

 

But that is EXACTLY what they are doing for folks who miss embarkation due to airline issues - the airline making one miss their embarkation is not a legal reason to violate the PVSA - the ship is knowingly allowing the violation because they missed due to fault of the airline.

 

According to the CBP PVSA book even a medical emergency will violate the PVSA:

 

"We note here, that the penalty of $300 is assessed against the vessel operator or

carrier that has provided the unlawful transportation. Thus, for example, a passenger

who embarked on a non-coastwise-qualified vessel at Baltimore, Maryland for a

Caribbean cruise scheduled to return and disembark at Baltimore, Maryland could not

disembark in Miami, Florida for medical or emergency reasons without there being a

violation of the PVSA. The penalty for this unlawful transportation would be assessed

against the vessel/carrier. "

 

Well it apparently ha been done:

 

August 5th, 2013, 06:04 PM

Hlitner Hlitner is offline

20,000+ Club

 

Join Date: May 2000

Location: New Cumberland,PA, USA

Posts: 24,304

Default

We have done it in 2 European countries and its actually a pretty common practice on longer European/Med cruises. But in each case we notified the cruise line pretty far in advance (some have a form that must be completed). We also drop by the guest relations desk early in our cruise to remind them of our plans. Whether or not you are permitted to debark has to do with the requirements of the country where you debark and can also be affected by the PVSA (Passenger Vessels Services Act) which can cause major issues on cruises to the Caribbean and Alaska.

 

By the way, if you do want to debark in violation of the PVSA it is actually possible (with the permission of the cruise line) but might subject you to a $300 per person fine. We know one case where a cruise line agreed to let a passenger off the ship in violation of the act...but charged the passengers the cost of the fine (which is assessed on the cruise line by the US Authorities)."

[navybankerteacher]

The line might be inclined to let passengers board if they missed port of embarkation through no fault of their own - but might not want to do it if through passenger carelessness. Maybe they have a motivation for seeing things differently - there might be other, indirect, consequences they would not want to deal with.

 

The bottom line is: the line does not have to violate law to accommodate a passenger. OP's notion of "pleading his case" is absurd - CBP does not maintain a judiciary - and why would an individual agent want to go out on a limb?

 

Again, we all sympathize with OP - but he learned a tough and expensive lesson - carelessness can have seemingly disproportionate consequences, but stuff happens. No one went out of their way to hurt him - they just did not violate the law to help him.

[zqvol]

Or, maybe, a claim on travel insurance for a "missed" cruise?

 

Well, if that is the case he better hope this thread gets deleted, because he admits that he missed the cruise because he left the proper documents at home and insurance won't cover that issue.

[notentirelynormal]

 

Well it apparently ha been done:

 

August 5th, 2013, 06:04 PM

Hlitner Hlitner is offline

20,000+ Club

 

Join Date: May 2000

Location: New Cumberland,PA, USA

Posts: 24,304

Default

We have done it in 2 European countries and its actually a pretty common practice on longer European/Med cruises. But in each case we notified the cruise line pretty far in advance (some have a form that must be completed). We also drop by the guest relations desk early in our cruise to remind them of our plans. Whether or not you are permitted to debark has to do with the requirements of the country where you debark and can also be affected by the PVSA (Passenger Vessels Services Act) which can cause major issues on cruises to the Caribbean and Alaska.

 

By the way, if you do want to debark in violation of the PVSA it is actually possible (with the permission of the cruise line) but might subject you to a $300 per person fine. We know one case where a cruise line agreed to let a passenger off the ship in violation of the act...but charged the passengers the cost of the fine (which is assessed on the cruise line by the US Authorities)."

 

It is absolutely irrelevant what happens in Europe regarding the PVSA law. Since it is an American law there is no need for the rest of the world to follow it.

 

As for the second one, you have no idea what the circumstances were regarding this passenger. For all you know the guy could have just been given notice that the operation to go forward so he could now donate his kidney had been approved.

[MicCanberra]

When I finally was able to notify the cruiseline that I would miss embarkation (their so-called en route emergency number does not work 24/7, just starts at 5:00 AM PST), the first question from them was why. When I explained that I temporarily lost my travel documents but made flight arrangements to meet the ship in Ketchikan after retrieving them, the response I got was that I would be denied boarding because in doing so I would violate the PVSA. They said that I could only join the land portion of the cruise tour in Anchorage.

 

I did so and met persons that missed embarkation but were permitted to board in Ketchikan. The only difference was that they missed because of an airline problem, not a personal reason. They did not buy any kind trip protection insurance. It is the CBP that determines if a PVSA violation has occurred based on passenger manifests submitted by the ship. A PVSA violation has absolutely nothing to do with what caused missed embarkation; it's the transportation of passengers between US ports without a far-distant foreign port of call. However, it may affect how the CBP reacts to violations when the passengers board. CBP may

 

1) document a violation with a subsequent penalty of $300 per passenger, and if so,

a) the cruise line may require reimbursement from the passenger if they didn't purchase "next port" protection,

b) or, as I was told by a cruise line rep, the airlines may reimburse the cruiseline if they were the root cause of a PVSA

2) discretionarily waive any violation

 

It is known fact that 14 persons boarded in Ketchikan (per CBP FIOIA response) due to missed embarkation. It is also a known that 4 of these debarked in Whittier (direct communication with 2 of the 4 traveling together) that should have caused PSVA violations but apparently were waived and not documented (per CBP FIOIA response).

 

I am waiting to hear back more from CBP regarding this specific issue of why these violations were not documented. The agent that is working with me went on personal vacation so I have to wait.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I am sorry you missed your cruise, it is a hard lesson to learn.

[MicCanberra]

Did the other people buy their plane tickets through the cruise line?

It was an interesting point about whether the airfares were organised by the cruise line. I wonder if that was the case and also the difference?

Edited September 4, 2016 by MicCanberra

[Cruisin' Chick]

I get it. Your issue is the cruise lines seems to apply the PVSA arbitrarily which it should not be allowed. You should have also been been allowed to board in Ketchikan - and all of you should have triggered a PVSA violation.

 

It's not a matter of the cruise line applying the PVSA arbitarily. And there could be a very valid reason why the CBP allowed the others to board later on...which may not be arbitary. furthermore, the agency doesn't have to justify its decision to the OP at all.

 

 

After arriving at the Indianapolis airport to embark the ship, I realized that I had left my passport and drivers ID at home. I couldn't board the airline.

 

this is the crux of the OP's problem. a mistake, especially in light of the tight schedule (one of the many reasons to avoid same day flights, especially when it's critical for the itinerary, which is certain way in this case.

...After driving home, I finally talked to a cruise rep. That is when it was explained that because I caused the problem, I would be denied boarding in Ketchikan or any another other ship itinerary port of call. During this conversation, the rep didn't say that if it was an airline problem I would have been able to board in Ketchikan; I would learn of this later.

 

which still would have been irrelevant don't know if the rep the OP talked to understood what happened or is a low level CSR who isn't schooled on the PVSA, which is possible, unfortunately. and whether others were having "airplane problems" or not, that really doesn't have a bearing on the OP forgetting something basic as one's ID.

 

During this same conversation, I was told that I could join my friends and the land portion of my cruise tour in Anchorage. A train from Whittier would stop in Anchorage to allow passenger boarding. In order to recoup a part of my trip, I flew from Indianapolis to Anchorage a week later. Upon my return, I learned the details about the en route emergency system flaws and the PVSA.

 

Again, others' flight situations have no bearing on the OP's case. His case had nothing to do with a "system flaw" other than being unlikely not to be able to talk with someone knowledgeable about the PVSA (who would have said he's SOL when it comes to getting on the ship if he's not there for the sailaway in Vancouver).

 

On the train going from Anchorage to Mt Denali, I met up with my friends. I explained in detail what had happen and the first words from my mouth were, "You have to meet this couple that is doing the land trip also." They overheard these two plus a couple they were doing the cruise portion together talking about how they missed embarkation due to a flight problem in Indianapolis and were permitted to board in Ketchikan without any insurance or knowledge of any PVSA violation. I talked with the couple during a couple of bus tours during the land trip. That is how I learned of their details and the couple they traveled with during the cruise.

 

Insurance would be irrelevant here if the airline was willing to change the passengers' flight and get them to Alaska (and eat the extra cost of flying them to Ketchikan). but whatever happened to their flight fit what the CBP's standard of permissible for missing that foreign port. The OP doesn't know exactly what happened and neither do his friends. the passengers in question may not know exactly what helped their cause. As they said, "the devil is in the details."

 

I'm not clairvoyant or have "almost" great karma. I researched my facts and noted conversations that I had with cruise reps. I made a FOIA to CBP and an agent has taken a personal interest in this situation. I am waiting to hear more from him after he returns from a personal vacation.

 

I will said it again. This was my own doing; a studip, absent-minded mistake. I am NOT going to attempt any reimbursement from or suit against the cruiseline. Maybe, I haven't thought seriously about it, a class action suit might get movement towards a re-write of the 100+ year old PVSA). I would like to get some explanations of how they can choose to treat customers so perversely, knowing that they won't admit to anything. Apparently, PVSA violations are rare (I think chengkp75 said this) and fines more so. I would like to hear from CBP what discretionary steps they have with documenting PVSA violations and exactly how do they get determined.

 

I think what many here are suggesting is just move on. You weren't treated in an arbitary way or in a perverse way. and the CBP may just tell you how the PVSA works and in the end, not justify it as they don't have to. another saying, a quote from a great movie: Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

 

Finally, the purpose for my original post here at CC, I wanted to let potential cruisers to completely understand what can happen on this particular type of cruise should embarkation be missed and that the cause will determine the type of customer service the cruise line will provide to you.

Any other questions NotEn...? I will be glad to answer them.

 

Yes, it is an important thing to know as many travel and go on cruises without ever hearing of the PVSA. You got an education in it (even though I think you still don't totally get it) and hopefully others may look at this thread and plan their trip more carefully (don't fly in the day of a cruise esp. when it's critical to get on at the embarkation port; make that checklist and check the vital items twice -- just like one wouldn't forget to make sure their front door is locked and the stove is turned off).

[navybankerteacher]

It's not a matter of the cruise line applying the PVSA arbitarily. And there could be a very valid reason why the CBP allowed the others to board later on...which may not be arbitary. furthermore' date=' the agency doesn't have to justify its decision to the OP at all.[/color']

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is an important thing to know as many travel and go on cruises without ever hearing of the PVSA. You got an education in it (even though I think you still don't totally get it) and hopefully others may look at this thread and plan their trip more carefully (don't fly in the day of a cruise esp. when it's critical to get on at the embarkation port; make that checklist and check the vital items twice -- just like one wouldn't forget to make sure their front door is locked and the stove is turned off).

 

DAMN!!!!!! I forgot the stove.

[MicCanberra]

DAMN!!!!!! I forgot the stove.

 

And yet some people pack the proverbial kitchen sink.:eek:

[CapeCodCruiser]

I guess I am just not a lemming blindly following...

 

Just because something is a law or a rule or a government statute does not mean it is a GOOD one. I do not think the PVSA was intended to s@rew a guy out of his hard earned vacation or doing that serves any real purpose - even if the guy made a mistake. The only way to effect change is if more people speak up in the proper venues.

 

To whoever posted that the agency doesn't have to justify its decision...your attitude is the scariest of all - one of the great things about this country is the people's ability to question what the government is doing without fear of retribution.

 

It's easy to sit behind your computer screen and say "Oh - it is a hard lesson to learn" but I hope for none of you ever find yourselves in a similar situation - yes you can plan - fly in the day before & buy insurance but sometimes there is just a "perfect storm" of events that can not be planned for.

[sparks1093]

I guess I am just not a lemming blindly following...

 

Just because something is a law or a rule or a government statute does not mean it is a GOOD one. I do not think the PVSA was intended to s@rew a guy out of his hard earned vacation or doing that serves any real purpose - even if the guy made a mistake. The only way to effect change is if more people speak up in the proper venues.

 

To whoever posted that the agency doesn't have to justify its decision...your attitude is the scariest of all - one of the great things about this country is the people's ability to question what the government is doing without fear of retribution.

 

It's easy to sit behind your computer screen and say "Oh - it is a hard lesson to learn" but I hope for none of you ever find yourselves in a similar situation - yes you can plan - fly in the day before & buy insurance but sometimes there is just a "perfect storm" of events that can not be planned for.

 

The reality is still the reality. Cheng outlined some very good reasons why the PVSA is still needed in this day and age. CBP doesn't have to answer to an individual but there are certainly mechanisms in place for oversight and there are higher authorities that CBP must answer to if necessary (Congress comes immediately to mind). I am far from a lemming (an myth Disney made up, BTW, it's not a real phenomenon) and in the OP's situation I can see why CBP would not waive the PVSA in his circumstance because if they did they all anyone would need to do to avoid the law would be to say "I forgot my documentation at home".

 

Agencies inherently have the discretion which laws to enforce and under what circumstances- police officers don't always write a ticket when they pull someone over, the IRS doesn't always assess taxes that should be assessed, CBP doesn't always impose duty on items being brought into the country, DA's don't always prosecute those charged with a crime. So while the PVSA has no formal language regarding waivers or exceptions CBP does allow some limited exceptions to exist. I actually like that, because it means some passengers are still allowed to catch up to their cruise. Yes, it sucks for OP that he didn't qualify for an exception. But just because something sucks doesn't mean that it needs to be changed.

[CapeCodCruiser]

The reality is still the reality. Cheng outlined some very good reasons why the PVSA is still needed in this day and age. CBP doesn't have to answer to an individual but there are certainly mechanisms in place for oversight and there are higher authorities that CBP must answer to if necessary (Congress comes immediately to mind). I am far from a lemming (an myth Disney made up, BTW, it's not a real phenomenon) and in the OP's situation I can see why CBP would not waive the PVSA in his circumstance because if they did they all anyone would need to do to avoid the law would be to say "I forgot my documentation at home".

 

Agencies inherently have the discretion which laws to enforce and under what circumstances- police officers don't always write a ticket when they pull someone over, the IRS doesn't always assess taxes that should be assessed, CBP doesn't always impose duty on items being brought into the country, DA's don't always prosecute those charged with a crime. So while the PVSA has no formal language regarding waivers or exceptions CBP does allow some limited exceptions to exist. I actually like that, because it means some passengers are still allowed to catch up to their cruise. Yes, it sucks for OP that he didn't qualify for an exception. But just because something sucks doesn't mean that it needs to be changed.

 

And that all sounds well & good until the day you have something unfairly or unjustly applied to you - that is when tunes suddenly change.

 

And by the way...I really do not need your lengthy explanation - I fully understand how things are - I choose to point out how things could be.

Edited September 5, 2016 by CapeCodCruiser

[sparks1093]

And that all sounds well & good until the day you have something unfairly or unjustly applied to you - that is when tunes suddenly change.

 

And by the way...I really do not need your lengthy explanation - I fully understand how things are - I choose to point out how things could be.

 

Sorry, you had your say and I had mine, that's how this interactive stuff works :). I have been in situations many times in my life where things were unfairly or unjustly applied to me. That's life. It ain't always fair. You pick yourself up, dust yourself off and get on with your life as best you can- maybe learning a few lessons along the way (and OP's post does at least let people learn from his mistake so they may avoid making the same one, and that is a good thing). (And one of the wisest things that I've ever read was "the government cannot be fair to everyone, the best it can do is to be equally unfair to everyone".)

Edited September 5, 2016 by sparks1093

[zqvol]

And that all sounds well & good until the day you have something unfairly or unjustly applied to you - that is when tunes suddenly change.

 

And by the way...I really do not need your lengthy explanation - I fully understand how things are - I choose to point out how things could be.

 

This situation was entirely caused by the OP, it was neither unfairly nor unjustly applied. The PSVA is a good law that protects many American jobs. It's impact on the cruise trade is minimal, but its impact on coastal trade, fishing, etc. is tremendous.

[navybankerteacher]

And that all sounds well & good until the day you have something unfairly or unjustly applied to you - that is when tunes suddenly change.

 

And by the way...I really do not need your lengthy explanation - I fully understand how things are - I choose to point out how things could be.

 

Back to the fundamentals: a) life isn't fair, and b) things happen.

 

I agree that it is too bad that arguably unfair things happened to OP - but would you rather live in an environment where low level government employees had the authority to single-handedly ignore laws, or where there was a large enough beaurocracy to provide for a compassionate review board at every port?

 

I would prefer to avoid those options - even if it means that sometimes people have to live with the consequences of their own fecklessness.

[sparks1093]

Back to the fundamentals: a) life isn't fair, and b) things happen.

 

I agree that it is too bad that arguably unfair things happened to OP - but would you rather live in an environment where low level government employees had the authority to single-handedly ignore laws, or where there was a large enough beaurocracy to provide for a compassionate review board at every port?

 

I would prefer to avoid those options - even if it means that sometimes people have to live with the consequences of their own fecklessness.

 

Actually if CBP's feet were held to the proverbial fire their response wouldn't be a review board, it would be to remove the discretion from their officers in every instance and to refuse any exceptions to the PVSA. Some people may prefer that, but I'm sure the 14 passengers that were allowed to board OP's cruise would feel differently. I much prefer government officials to be able to make such discretionary decisions, even if sometimes it appears arbitrary.

[MicCanberra]

Actually if CBP's feet were held to the proverbial fire their response wouldn't be a review board, it would be to remove the discretion from their officers in every instance and to refuse any exceptions to the PVSA. Some people may prefer that, but I'm sure the 14 passengers that were allowed to board OP's cruise would feel differently. I much prefer government officials to be able to make such discretionary decisions, even if sometimes it appears arbitrary.

 

Agreed,

BTW, life is not fair but it doesn't have to always be like that either.

[navybankerteacher]

Agreed,

BTW, life is not fair but it doesn't have to always be like that either.

 

"ALWAYS" is a very long time. How many cases similar to OP's have you heard of in the last several years?

 

There is no "always" at play here. Certainly not in the case of the 14 others.